Should The U.N. Be Disbanded?

[Pangu]

We

The greatest move the UN could make would be to re-locate somewhere other than the USA. PLEASE!!!!!

So all you UN supporters out there: Where should the UN be located?? I vote for Commie China.



Better tell Putin!

We will welcome the UN in China, & give visa to Iran's chosen UN rep.

 

[flamer84]

No.Veto right should be abolished and UN decisions passed with majority of votes from the members.

 

[TruthSeeker]

No.Veto right should be abolished and UN decisions passed with majority of votes from the members.

This would be meaningless unless the UN has credible armed forces at its command and a tax base to support it. And, by the way, before that could ever happen, the UN would need to adopt a "World Constitution" ratified by nation states agreeing to be taxed. THAT ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes. (Or, at least not in mine since I am already 68!)

 

[applesauce]

So all you UN supporters out there: Where should the UN be located?? I vote for Commie China.

why not a neutral location, geneva is always popular, or like i previously said, a location thats not the sovereign territory of any country, like some nice little spot in antarctica (bonus: not much there so they'll have to work on politics )

 

[applesauce]

There is no 'try', but will. International alliances are inherently extra-territorial in relations and by default ANYTHING they do will be 'international' in scope. Further, there can and will be alliances that will act with and against each other, so once again, ANYTHING they do will be 'international' in scope. How obvious can it get ?

are you thickheaded? i never said (among millions of other things i've never said, yet you ASSUME i think or have said) that such a alliance CANNOT act. what i said was that the UN has more legitimacy to act in international issues.

It was a useless point because it is not true. It is an argument that have no basis in reality. There are immigration -- yes. But just because so many of them are educated professionals does not equate to the usual generalization that ALL scientific accomplishments in the US came from immigrants. If you do not believe in it, then why did you bring it up ? I brought up immigration to the West only to point out that we can be as discriminatory as we want in this hypothetical new alliance. Nothing to do with scientific accomplishments.

yep, you must be thick in the head. once again, i never once said ALL scientific accomplishments are due to immigration, the reason i brought it up is to say that its a bad idea to stop all immigration that is all.

When you brought on the ridiculous argument that science would collapse without non-white immigrants, it is YOU who are the racist.

in your imaginary fairyland maybe, in the real world i never said anything of the sort

If you think your group here is not made up of racists, look at the posts they made about Jews and Israel, a people and country that have next to nothing to do with China.

where did i say chinese members are never racist? what makes them "my group"? if its race, i can quote a bunch of racist posts by vietnamese folks from the internet too, that must mean you are a racist, ignorant, bigot, right? and again, this has nothing to do with the UN, you're just making a diversion again because your point about the UN has no logic and you are out of arguments.

Why not China ? There are always competition and when the Soviet Union collapsed, that left China as the only non-West competitor. This is foreign affairs we are talking about here.

whether china leads the competition to your proposed alliance have nothing to do with whether your alliance would be better than the UN.

We would not care about legitimacy as much as protection and interests. So would any alliance led by China. You cannot deny this fact.

legitimacy can directly impact the success of the actions taken to protect or promote national interests.

 

[Tshering22]

First of all this VETO business is so old fashioned. 5 countries deciding the future of the rest. And most of the time, It is always USA that uses it while UK nods and France shrugs in confusion, while Russians and Chinese refuse to meddle into others' affairs.

All member states must vote on a particular issue and those having the majority should pass that specific bill or legislation.

Second, UN must move out of USA. It must be located in a country that has nothing to do with global politics. Some place like Mauritius, Seychelles, Iceland, Switzerland, Cape Verde, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Nauru etc. This way, the hosting country would be useless to any side for arm twisting and matters can be discussed in a fair manner.

 

[gambit]

First of all this VETO business is so old fashioned. 5 countries deciding the future of the rest. And most of the time, It is always USA that uses it while UK nods and France shrugs in confusion, while Russians and Chinese refuse to meddle into others' affairs.

All member states must vote on a particular issue and those having the majority should pass that specific bill or legislation.

Second, UN must move out of USA. It must be located in a country that has nothing to do with global politics. Some place like Mauritius, Seychelles, Iceland, Switzerland, Cape Verde, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Nauru etc. This way, the hosting country would be useless to any side for arm twisting and matters can be discussed in a fair manner.

Nothing to do with global politics ? That is a pipe dream. Nevertheless, speaking for myself, I have no problems with the idea. Let someone else host the UN, as an organization. But then since clubs are, or should be, voluntary, I say the US should get out of the UN. Once we do, the UN will collapse on its own.

 

[senheiser]

No.Veto right should be abolished and UN decisions passed with majority of votes from the members.

so africans decide whats gonna happen even if india or china have more people than africa. Same way for all the small eastern european countries who have less people than russia.

If the US leave the UN, the UN will self disband, or self dissolve, however anyone want to look at it.


Sorry, Dag, but perhaps the UN has reached its zenith in terms of usefulness.

The world's functional democracies needs to get out of the UN and form their own alliance based upon shared values, not shared fears and threats, like the current UN is. We do not need the UN to prevent hell on Earth because in many countries, hell is already there. If it is argued that the UN contained those pockets of hell, then it can be argued that a powerful alliance of functional democracies will be able to do the same. If the world want a multi-polar socio-political environment, then disbanding the UN is the surest way to get that wish. An alliance of wealthy and sophisticated functional democracies on one side, and an alliance of poor and backward dictatorships on the other. The 'sides' here are notional and not geographical, of course. Immigration between the two sides would be strictly controlled, naturally. Although it would be odd if anyone would want to leave heaven and go to hell.

The US should either leave the UN, or at least eject the organization from our soil. Let a dictatorship host it. Given how corrupt and ineffective the UN proved over the decades, who asked the UN to leave the US and let him host it ?

the reason why these countries are poor and backwards is because you westerners exploited their resources and meddled into their internal affairs and grow fat at the others costs.

Without bodies like UN, imf and worldbank you actually pretty much cut your own leg who enabling your living standard which is based on other peoples wealth.

 

[flamer84]

so africans decide whats gonna happen even if india or china have more people than africa. Same way for all the small eastern european countries who have less people than russia.

Sure,the Eastern Europeans are more honest than Russia,they deserve a better spot.But,if you want numbers alone,let's take the first 3 states in the world by population...

As a side note,countries that have been responsible for the death of over 25 million + people in the last 80-100 years should be forbidden to even have a common vote equal to Zimbabwe on the basis that they're criminals on a 20-50 years trial period.And,as we all know,Russia isn't a criminal,Russia is a deranged,psycho-uber-serial criminal.So.....hushh....

 

[senheiser]

Sure,the Eastern Europeans are more honest than Russia,they deserve a better spot.But,if you want numbers alone,let's take the first 3 states in the world by population...

As a side note,countries that have been responsible for the death of over 25 million + people in the last 80-100 years should be forbidden to even have a common vote equal to Zimbabwe on the basis that they're criminals on a 20-50 years trial period.And,as we all know,Russia isn't a criminal,Russia is a deranged,psycho-uber-serial criminal.So.....hushh....

the only criminals are eastern europeans who supported nazism like your country, you supported the death of 27 million russians

 

[armchairPrivate]

The five permanent SC members used to be US, UK, FR, ROC, USSR. UK, FR and ROC were US lackeys, especially ROC. US was able to push USSR around then. Since PRC took over the seat of ROC, the dynamic has changed. Now it is 3 against 2, rather than 4 against one.

UN's usefulness to the US has passed it's expiration date. The UN has served it's purpose for the US, the US just doesn't need it any more.

 

[KingMamba]

Um nop. Without the UN we would have WW3 within a week. Throughout history men have fought for land, the most precious thing in the world. The UN Charter specifically states that no country is allowed to invade and occupy another country, in whole or in part, without the approval of the latter.

LOL who would agree to such a thing?

Gareth Evans
Gareth Evans, former Foreign Minister of Australia (1988-1996) and President of the International Crisis Group, is currently Chancellor of the Australian National University and co-chairs the New York-based Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect and the Canberra-based Center for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.

MAR 26, 2013
Valuing the United Nations
MELBOURNE – There is nothing like exposure to smart and idealistic young people to make jaded and world-weary policymakers and commentators feel better about the future. I have just had that experience meeting delegates to the 22nd World Model United Nations Conference, which brought together in Australia more than 2,000 students from every continent and major culture to debate peace, development, and human rights, and the role of the UN in securing them.

What impressed me most is how passionately this generation of future leaders felt about the relevance and capacity of the UN system. They are right: the UN can deliver when it comes to national security, human security, and human dignity. But, as I told them, they have a big task of persuasion ahead of them.

No organization in the world embodies as many dreams, yet provides so many frustrations, as the United Nations. For most of its history, the Security Council has been the prisoner of great-power maneuvering; the General Assembly a theater of empty rhetoric; the Economic and Social Council a largely dysfunctional irrelevance; and the Secretariat, for all the dedication and brilliance of a host of individuals, alarmingly inefficient.

My own efforts to advance the cause of UN reform when I was Australia’s foreign minister were about as quixotic and unproductive as anything I have ever tried to do. Overhauling Secretariat structures and processes to reduce duplication, waste, and irrelevance? Forget it. Changing the composition of the Security Council to ensure that it began to reflect the world of the twenty-first century, not that of the 1950’s? No way.

But I have also had some exhilarating experiences of the UN at its best. The peace plan for Cambodia in the early 1990’s, for example, dragged the country back from hellish decades of horrifying genocide and ugly and protracted civil war. Likewise, the Chemical Weapons Convention, steered through the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, is still the most robust arms-control treaty related to weapons of mass destruction ever negotiated.

Perhaps one experience stands out above all. In 2005, on the UN’s 60th anniversary, the General Assembly, convening at head of state and government level, unanimously endorsed the concept of states’ responsibility to protect populations at risk of genocide and other mass atrocity crimes. With that vote, the international community began to eradicate the shameful indifference that accompanied the Holocaust, Rwanda, Srebrenica, Darfur, and too many similar catastrophes.

What needs to be better understood publicly is just how many different roles the UN plays. The various departments, programs, organs, and agencies within the UN system address a broad spectrum of issues, from peace and security between and within states to human rights, health, education, poverty alleviation, disaster relief, refugee protection, trafficking of people and drugs, heritage protection, climate change and the environment, and much else. What is least appreciated of all is how cost-effectively these agencies – for all their limitations – perform overall, in both absolute and comparative terms.

The UN’s core functions – leaving aside peacekeeping missions but including its operations at its New York headquarters; at offices in Geneva, Vienna, and Nairobi; and at the five regional commissions around the world – now employ 44,000 people at a cost of around $2.5 billion a year. That might sound like a lot, but the Tokyo Fire Department spends about the same amount each year, and the Australian Department of Human Services spends $3 billion more (with less staff). And that’s just two departments in two of the UN’s 193 member states.

Even including related programs and organs (like the UN Development Program and the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees), as well as peacekeeping activities (which involve more than 110,000 international military, police, and civilian personnel), the UN system’s total cost is still only around $30 billion a year. That is less than half the annual budget for New York City, and well under a third of the roughly $105 billion that the US military has been spending each year, on average, in Afghanistan. Wall Street employees received more in annual bonuses ($33.2 billion) in 2007, the year before the global financial meltdown.

The whole family of the UN Secretariat and related entities, together with current peacekeepers, adds up to around 215,000 people worldwide – not a small number, but less than one-eighth of the roughly 1.8 million staff employed by McDonald’s and its franchisees worldwide!

The bottom line, as the youngsters gathered in Melbourne fully understood, is that the UN provides fabulous value for what the world spends on it, and that if it ever ceased to exist, we would have to reinvent it. The downsides are real, but we need to remember the immortal words of Dag Hammarskjold, the UN’s second secretary-general: “The UN was created not to bring us to heaven, but to save us from hell.”

Gareth Evans

on Valuing the United Nations

- Project Syndicate


Read more at Gareth Evans

on Valuing the United Nations

- Project Syndicate

UN should be shifted to a neutral country like Switzerland or something.

 

[flamer84]

Sure,the Eastern Europeans are more honest than Russia,they deserve a better spot.But,if you want numbers alone,let's take the first 3 states in the world by population...

As a side note,countries that have been responsible for the death of over 25 million + people in the last 80-100 years should be forbidden to even have a common vote equal to Zimbabwe on the basis that they're criminals on a 20-50 years trial period.And,as we all know,Russia isn't a criminal,Russia is a deranged,psycho-uber-serial criminal.So.....hushh....

the only criminals are eastern europeans who supported nazism like your country, you supported the death of 27 million russians

Nonsense ...Our only war crime was killing some 260.000 jews and gypsie civilians in cold blood which i admit was barbaric.What happenned to soviet partisans who commited terorrist acts like Odessa or other russians was Justice and Retribution for their own crimes.

 

[senheiser]

Nonsense ...Our only war crime was killing some 260.000 jews and gypsie civilians in cold blood which i admit was barbaric.What happenned to soviet partisans who commited terorrist acts like Odessa or other russians was Justice and Retribution for their own crimes.

the neo nazi has spoken you pretty much admit your crimes here

 

[flamer84]

the neo nazi has spoken you pretty much admit your crimes here

Ok,for once i will try not to get emotional,troll,and have an actual dispute.

Did I personally commit crimes ?-No.

Did my nation commit unspeakable war crimes during WW2 ? -Yes.You'd have to be a psycopath not to admit that poring gasoline on women,children,elderly ,be they enemies and part of a nation who commited crimes against you before,and setting them on fire is not a terrible,shamefull war crime.So yes,it was horrible and it shames Romania as a nation but we've admitted it.

Did the SU commit war crimes(killings ,deportations,beatings,torture,humiliations) against Romanians at the onset of WW2 in 1940 Besserabia and Bukovina ? -Yes.

So,where do we go from here ? Only hate forever because "your grandfather did this to my grandfather and vice versa" or finally sit down,each apologises for what their forefathers did and sees that this will never happen again ? Not to mention that we're all orthodox christians and i think you know how orthodox christians are generally viewed in the West .-That's why i was surprised to see you defending "western calvinists/catholics" such as the hungarians who treated my people like garbage only because they viewed the orthodox as "eastern savagers"

Or do you prefere that Russia exterminates the E. Europeans who stood against her in the past ? Whatever floats your boat i guess.I would personally like to see the "Bear" as an elder brother ,minus extermination and russification attempts.Believe it or not,at the end of the day we have more in common with Russians than westerners.That goes for the majority of E. Europeans.