UN: Completely Worthless & Dysfunctional ????

[Goshin]

In light of the Syrian events, can we now assume the UN is without question the most useless and inept organization on the planet?

What is the purpose of the UN if not to take the lead in something as pressing as what's going on in Syria?

Will anyone defend the UN at this time as being something of value to the world?

What am I missing?

I've been saying this for decades.

 

[Wiggen]

Oh goodie! We have a new game to play. One word condemnations. My turn.

The USA - Sideshow
The UK - Mau-maus
France - Algeria
Russia - Chechnya
Israel - Sabra-Shatila

Of course the difference between these and Srebrenica is that the UN didn't kill anyone, they just failed to stop the killings. I guess that makes them worse in your book.

Well, since their sole purpose in being there was to prevent unarmed civilians from being killed, and instead they facilitated it, yes - that makes them worse. I'm waiting for you to list the successes the UN has had. Africa? Well, I guess when UN 'peacekeepers' weren't busy raping the native population, perhaps they were a rip roaring success. The Balkans? Well, no, that was US air power that stopped that carnage while the UN and Europe stood around ringing their hands. Surely you can come up with one or two.

UN peacekeepers in Haiti jailed over rape of teenage boy - Telegraph

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...e-will-the-un-ignore-in-congo/article4462151/

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/another_un_peacekeeper_rape_scandal/

On the other hand, this thread did give you the opportunity to take another shot at the US and Israel, so good job!

 

[DiAnna]

I've been saying this for decades.

So have I. Nobody ever listens to us.

 

[lizzie]

In light of the Syrian events, can we now assume the UN is without question the most useless and inept organization on the planet?

What is the purpose of the UN if not to take the lead in something as pressing as what's going on in Syria?

Will anyone defend the UN at this time as being something of value to the world?

What am I missing?

Umm, they've pretty much been useless my entire adult life. This is nothing new. They cater to dictators and tyrants, and can't stomach to see an actual global conflict resolved in the only way which works.

 

[Goshin]

Umm, they've pretty much been useless my entire adult life. This is nothing new. They cater to dictators and tyrants, and can't stomach to see an actual global conflict resolved in the only way which works.

It's pretty much always just been a dog and pony show to dazzle the masses. All flashing lights and bling, no substance.

 

[nota bene]

I remember how Saddam Hussein defied the UN and have always thought that if the UN had forced him to comply, we wouldn't have been drawn in.

 

[DiAnna]

I remember how Saddam Hussein defied the UN and have always thought that if the UN had forced him to comply, we wouldn't have been drawn in.

To quote an old, overused saying, "The U.N. is as useful as teats on a boar." Throw enough money at the right people in the U.N., and it won't matter if there are teats or not; the U.N. will suck whatever is hanging down there.

 

[nota bene]

I wouldn't mind its relocating its offices.

 

[Andalublue]

On the other hand, this thread did give you the opportunity to take another shot at the US and Israel, so good job!

Very telling that I write about the US, UK, France, Russia and Israel, and you only read the US and Israel. That says a lot.

 

[Andalublue]

I say:

You got any evidence to back up this pretty damning accusation?

You say:

You are entitled to be as selectively opinionated and transparent as you wish! :2wave:

'No', would have been more succinct. Thanks for the confirmation however. :thanks

 

[joG]

In light of the Syrian events, can we now assume the UN is without question the most useless and inept organization on the planet?

What is the purpose of the UN if not to take the lead in something as pressing as what's going on in Syria?

Will anyone defend the UN at this time as being something of value to the world?

What am I missing?

When Bush was trying to persuade the UN to act, when Saddam kept the inspectors from inspecting, he addressed the UN General Assembly and pointed out that they must act or become irrelevant. At that time they chose irrelevance. They did introduce R2P in 2005, however. That was a major step forward. Sorrily they will still not guarantee security for the peoples world wide. That is their job and they fall very short very often.

It is up to all of us to get the UN to improve its performance.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Before anyone discusses the value of the UN, let's look at some basic facts:

Fact 1: There are 193 member states in the United Nations General Assembly. Of that number 15 comprise the membership of the Security Council; 10 of which are elected for two year terms by and from the General Assembly, and 5 of which are permanent members: The USA, The Russian Federation, China, The UK, and France. These 5 have absolute veto power over any act or resolution of the UN.

Members of the United Nations Security Council

Fact 2: All members are assessed dues based on membership rules. The top 15 dues paying members as of 2013 in order are:

Member state..........Contribution(% of UN budget)
United States...........................22.000%
Japan.....................................10.833%
Germany..................................7.141%
France.....................................5.593%
United Kingdom..........................5.179%
China.......................................5.148%
Italy........................................4.448%
Canada....................................2.984%
Spain.......................................2.973%
Brazil........................................2.934%
Russia.......................................2.438%
Australia....................................2.074%
South Korea...............................1.994%
Mexico......................................1.842%
Netherlands................................1.654%
All Other member states..............20.765%

Among the other member states we see:

India pays: .666%
Iran pays: .356%
Israel pays: .396%
N. Korea pays: .006%
Pakistan pays: .085%
Saudi Arabia: .864%

A minimum assessment rate of 0.001 per cent; (g) A maximum assessment rate for the least developed countries of 0.01 per cent; (h) A maximum assessment rate of 22 per cent.

United Nations Official Document

In 2012 only 5 members had not paid their assessments, four were minor nations in Africa and the fifth was the Comoros Islands.

As of 16 May 2013, all Member State have paid their dues and are able to vote.

UN General Assembly - Countries in Arrears in the Payment of Their Financial Contributions Under the Terms of Article 19 of the UN Charter

Fact 3: There are only Four nations not members of the United Nations. They are:

Kosovo, Taiwan, Palestine, and The Vatican City.

Fact 4: The UN Peacekeeping Force is made up of miliary units voluntarily donated by member states and has an extremely limited combat authority.

Military. United Nations Peacekeeping

Fact 5: All of this was originally set up by the victors of WWII, which is why they make up the permanent membership of the Security Council. It is also why each one has absolute power to override the will of the membership. If you want to blame anyone for the United Nations and it's original and ongoing lack of power and authority to take "responsible appropriate" action....blame them.

 

[Dragonfly]

It is up to all of us to get the UN to improve its performance.

Uhhhhhhhh.......how do you propose "we" do that?

 

[joG]

Uhhhhhhhh.......how do you propose "we" do that?

The way these things are done in democracies. Call your congressman.

 

[Andalublue]

Here's an idea whose time may have arrived... let's reform the UNSC and remove the veto from the P5 group. Let's have all decisions taken on the Unanimity-minus-one principle, and let's increase the P5 to P7, bringing in Brazil and India. That's no quite what Cameron has been hinting at, but I think it would be an excellent start.

Don't sideline the UN Security Council. Reinvent it for today | Observer editorial | Comment is free | The Observer

 

[rathi]

Here's an idea whose time may have arrived... let's reform the UNSC and remove the veto from the P5 group. Let's have all decisions taken on the Unanimity-minus-one principle, and let's increase the P5 to P7, bringing in Brazil and India. That's no quite what Cameron has been hinting at, but I think it would be an excellent start.

Don't sideline the UN Security Council. Reinvent it for today | Observer editorial | Comment is free | The Observer

That kind of thinking is just as childish and naive as the people who whine about the U.N. International relations is based on the exercise of power, and the security council must reflect that. Russia doesn't have veto power over an attack on Syria because of a voting system, they have it because they have effective reprisals ranging from threatening western Europe's energy supply to global nuclear holocaust. Pretending that procedural voting in the U.N. is more important than real exercise of economic and military power is incredibly dangerous.

 

[majith87]

In light of the Syrian events, can we now assume the UN is without question the most useless and inept organization on the planet?

What is the purpose of the UN if not to take the lead in something as pressing as what's going on in Syria?

Will anyone defend the UN at this time as being something of value to the world?

What am I missing?

I accept you, I feel the same. They must have much power in this world.