It outlived whatever usefulness it may have ever had decades ago.
22 thoughts on “The UN”
Not for small nations.
What does it do for small nations?
It provides a framework for peaceful resolution of disputes between nations that aren’t powerful enough to defend their interests by force.
In the case of Holland, it’s a member of NATO. Which has the “attack on one is attack on all” aspect. An additional “framework for peaceful resolution of disputes” is unnecessary.
NATO by its charter can do little to help if your problem is a civil war, a secession from the Kingdom of the Netherlands, or if the conflict is between two NATO member states.
Successive post-war Dutch governments have been strongly in favour of NATO, the EU and the UN, all for the same reason. If you’re small, you want allies and the rule of law, even if it is imperfect.
Can you give us examples of such resolution of disputes?
And is this worth all the corruption associated with the UN?
See, I was going to say “It provides a framework for extorting money from nations that are powerful enough to defend their interests by force.”
And bombing those who aren’t…
The UN’s architects were Alger Hiss and V. M. Molotov. Enough said.
The UN Security Council has all the nuclear weapon states on it. Hardly useless since it is a place where they can try to defuse issues before they get overblown. The UN General Assembly has little actual power or powers but can still serve to settle territorial disputes when a major power is not involved. It has done so several times in the past with a reasonable amount of success.
The UN Security Council has all the nuclear weapon states on it.
India? Pakistan? North Korea?
Yeah you are correct IN and PK are not in it. I think they should be however they still do not have ICBMs AFAIK they only have IRBMs. It took ages for the rest of the security council to recognize the PRC so it is par for the course. NK is supposedly not a nuclear weapon state yet although there was that weird explosion a couple of years back.
PS: Israel has ICBMs (Jericho III).
Assuming the “conflict resolution” argument is valid, does that justify the other 99% of what the UN does? If so, how?
Like the federal government, the UN does a whole lot more than was originally intended.
…Or than it is competent to do, for that matter.
I found this paragraph interesting:
The False Dream of Tomorrow
But the most powerful of the United Nations’ many and varied antinomies is the one that ironically turns the institution’s very failures into its most potent source of legitimacy. The distinctive salience of the United Nations is that it is a failure today—and a hope for tomorrow. And this is so even though it is always a failure today, each and every day—and yet always a hope for tomorrow. Imagine the United Nations as a sickly sapling. Sickly as it is today, however, it still holds out the promise of growing to become a glorious overarching tree—the glorious sheltering tree of global governance—but tomorrow, and always tomorrow. The tree never seems to grow or overcome its pathologies; it always remains the same sickly sapling. But likewise the promise of tomorrow, too, always remains as glorious.
Sounds to me like the UN does have a purpose. It defuses much of the impulse to create larger superstates like the EU.
I’d prefer that intractable international differences be settled by war. Any other “settlement” only kicks the can down the road.
And yes, I have been to a war.
The U.N. serves a vital purpose to many of the member nations. It gets some of their corrupt officials OUT of the country, and into NYC, where’ they’ll cause less trouble for the locals.
The U.N. does a couple of things well — WHO, for example — but the U.N. Human Rights Council is a much more representative example of the organization’s nature. The value of our membership lies mainly in the veto we hold in the Security Council — my ideal president would begin his administration by announcing a standing veto of all Security Council resolutions during his term of office.
The U.N. does a couple of things well
Which, if you think about it a bit, is actually a reason for getting rid of the U.N. Once you get rid of the U.N. those things that it does well can become other organizations that focus on doing those things well.
It doesn’t make sense to have a bloated organization that does all those other things not well.
We have an old high-rise in Houston that’s always full of transient bums. We just haven’t attached a fancy name like “U.N. Headquarters” to it. Yet.
Not for small nations.
What does it do for small nations?
It provides a framework for peaceful resolution of disputes between nations that aren’t powerful enough to defend their interests by force.
In the case of Holland, it’s a member of NATO. Which has the “attack on one is attack on all” aspect. An additional “framework for peaceful resolution of disputes” is unnecessary.
NATO by its charter can do little to help if your problem is a civil war, a secession from the Kingdom of the Netherlands, or if the conflict is between two NATO member states.
Successive post-war Dutch governments have been strongly in favour of NATO, the EU and the UN, all for the same reason. If you’re small, you want allies and the rule of law, even if it is imperfect.
Can you give us examples of such resolution of disputes?
And is this worth all the corruption associated with the UN?
See, I was going to say “It provides a framework for extorting money from nations that are powerful enough to defend their interests by force.”
And bombing those who aren’t…
The UN’s architects were Alger Hiss and V. M. Molotov. Enough said.
The UN Security Council has all the nuclear weapon states on it. Hardly useless since it is a place where they can try to defuse issues before they get overblown. The UN General Assembly has little actual power or powers but can still serve to settle territorial disputes when a major power is not involved. It has done so several times in the past with a reasonable amount of success.
The UN Security Council has all the nuclear weapon states on it.
India? Pakistan? North Korea?
Yeah you are correct IN and PK are not in it. I think they should be however they still do not have ICBMs AFAIK they only have IRBMs. It took ages for the rest of the security council to recognize the PRC so it is par for the course. NK is supposedly not a nuclear weapon state yet although there was that weird explosion a couple of years back.
PS: Israel has ICBMs (Jericho III).
Assuming the “conflict resolution” argument is valid, does that justify the other 99% of what the UN does? If so, how?
Like the federal government, the UN does a whole lot more than was originally intended.
…Or than it is competent to do, for that matter.
I found this paragraph interesting:
Sounds to me like the UN does have a purpose. It defuses much of the impulse to create larger superstates like the EU.
I’d prefer that intractable international differences be settled by war. Any other “settlement” only kicks the can down the road.
And yes, I have been to a war.
The U.N. serves a vital purpose to many of the member nations. It gets some of their corrupt officials OUT of the country, and into NYC, where’ they’ll cause less trouble for the locals.
The U.N. does a couple of things well — WHO, for example — but the U.N. Human Rights Council is a much more representative example of the organization’s nature. The value of our membership lies mainly in the veto we hold in the Security Council — my ideal president would begin his administration by announcing a standing veto of all Security Council resolutions during his term of office.
The U.N. does a couple of things well
Which, if you think about it a bit, is actually a reason for getting rid of the U.N. Once you get rid of the U.N. those things that it does well can become other organizations that focus on doing those things well.
It doesn’t make sense to have a bloated organization that does all those other things not well.
We have an old high-rise in Houston that’s always full of transient bums. We just haven’t attached a fancy name like “U.N. Headquarters” to it. Yet.