Originally posted by: sumyungai
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Actually one of the biggest and lamest boondoggles in the history of the world was the formation of the United Nations.....there is and never will be anything United about the members of the UN....
Its rediculous and stoopid of us to even be a part of such an organization or bastions od fools...
I am always surprised about the lack of knowledge most people have about the UN. I must say, expecially american people.
They say the UN, and then talk about the UN Security council. The security council is not the UN. The amount of good things the United Nations and all the agency linked to the United Nations simply has no match in the world history.
The security council is an arena for geopolitics, and as everything else where politics and power are involved, it is not perfect. The constant criticism of the whole UN system based on the performance of the Security Council alone is simple lack of informations.
I am amazed at the lack of knowledge some people have concerning the UN!!
http://www.solport.com/roundtable/archives/000232.php
Why Doesn?t the US Respect the UN?
Most Americans have very little respect for the UN or other bureaucrats. In general, the UN is not seen as a force for world peace, but as a collection of international bureaucrats who use US money to criticize America and cause problems. The US pays approximately 22% of the entire UN budget.
The United States is a Democratic-Republic that exists under a written Constitution. The right to representation is very important to us. So why give power to representatives of dictatorships and banana republics? The very idea of allowing the UN to have power over the US is abhorrent to most Americans and this is a large reason why the US is very careful to protect its national sovereignty. However Americans used to support the UN when it was seen as a force for world peace. But are Americans justified in their current contempt for the UN? Let us look at some recent examples of the UN in action.
The UN appointed a representative from Libya - Libya! - to chair the U.N. Human Rights Commissions. This would be a sick joke if it were not true. That is not just the opinion of America, here are some articles from the UK and France. Even writers in Pakistan - hardly at the forefront of human rights - condemned this miscarriage of justice.
A fearful Iraqi approached the UN inspectors at one of the UN compounds in Iraq and asked for sanctuary. This was not an unreasonable request, UN compounds typically provide diplomatic protection to those in need. At least they used to help people. This time, the UN security thugs were called and they turned the frightened man over to Iraqi 'police' where he was no doubt taken away to be beaten - at best.
In July, 1995 a contingent of UN Peacekeepers - who had promised protection to thousands of refugees - did nothing while about 7,000 males were slaughtered by the Serb Army. The Global Policy Forum concluded:
What should be learnt from this? It is important not to heap blame on the Dutch. The Dutch government, army and Dutchbat itself do deserve a measure of blame, but culpability spreads wider. The UN was hampered by a disagreement at the highest level between participating governments. America was committed to a policy of "lift and strike." It wished to lift an embargo on supplying arms to the Muslims, whom it favoured, and was keen to use air power against the Serbs.
For reasons still understandable, other governments thought that feeding arms into the country would only intensify the conflict, while they would not support air strikes against the Serbs alone. In the end, by supplying arms and training to the Croats, the Americans got the better of the Serbs. Much later, by bombing Serbia during the Kosovo war, they broke Serbian power altogether.
The UN bureaucracy could not bring themselves to authorize force to resolve the issue. Even their armed Peacekeepers did little to protect those they had promised protection. It was only the 'unilateral' decision of the US Government to forcibly intervene that stopped the conflict. Is it any wonder that Americans do not trust the UN to protect human life? The question for Americans is why do so many Europeans respect the UN?
I think these examples should be enough for anyone. Glenn Reynolds, the author of InstaPundit, has written a very compelling article showing that nations only get involved in genocidal wars when they may spill over into their territory. While his intent was not to blast the UN, his examples clearly show that the UN has a poor track record of stopping genocide. As an American, I am both proud and disappointed in my country's record. I am proud that we have put a stop to more of these genocidal wars than any other country in modern (all) history. And we did not do this out of fear these wars would jump oceans and impact our backyard - we did this out of respect for human life. I am disappointed that we did not act to stop more of these genocidal attempts. When all is said and done, it is clear that the US record in this area is far superior to that of the UN.
The UN could still have a helpful role in world affairs, but they need to clean up their own house before being treated seriously by Americans. However, they had better hurry or America may just withdraw from it. We have more effective uses for our money than funding people to criticize the US. And it looks like Japan, the second-largest funder of the UN, will be reducing the size of their contribution. Unless the UN changes course, it will join the League of Nations as yet another failed idea.
Well said, I was just too lazy to search for all of those informations.
I have a friend who works for the UN in NY. He's as anti-Bush as one can get, and before he worked for the UN, he was all praises for the UN. As if the UN could do no wrong. Now that he's worked there for a few years, he came to the conclusion that the UN is filled with corrupted bureaucrats who's interests are for only themselves. This coming from an anti-Bush, pro-Democrat, pro-liberal, and previously pro-UN is a real convincing eye-opener. He still believes the UN can still do some good when it comes to food aid in third world countries, but other than that, they are hampered by too much politics.
I'm sorry, but again I see a lot of confusion. Most of what you guys here talk about is the UN
Security Council. The Un Security Council is probably the single most corrupt assembly of politicians in the world. Why? Because every country in the world is in it, lobbying for its interest. Also, contrary to most people belief, it was not made to change the world, but instead to preserve the balance of power. In this it has been incredibly succesful. The security council was created to be a mirror image of the balance of power after WWII, and its main function was "to avoid war between the world's major powers". It froze the cold war and permitted power struggle without world war. Of course this meant minor countries had to be bought and sold in the process, lured into particular political policies by the means of economic and military aid, and this generates corruption. But it was not the UN corrupting them. It was the US and Soviet Union and France and the UK and China. Sounds familiar? Yep, the 5 veto-countries. The Security Council is often ineffective. Nobody likes it, not even people working for the UN agencies. Everybody agrees it would need a reform, the problem is finding a reform every country would agree on. Having the US agreeing on a major UN reform is in fact the hardest part, as the US know the UN system pretty well from the last 60 years and most american ambassadors are scared of what a change in the rules could mean.
But peace-keeping is not the biggest role played by the UN agencies, nor the most important. Want to know what these guys have done, and do everyday? Have a look at their website..
United Nations Development Program:
UNDP is the UN's global development network, an organization advocating for change and connecting countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. We are on the ground in 166 countries, working with them on their own solutions to global and national development challenges. It is now focusing on the implementation of the Millenium Development Goals: Democratic Governance, Poverty Reduction, Crisis Prevention, Energy, Environment and HIV/AIDS prevenction.
The High Commissioner for Human Rights, published the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has been the ground work for over 80 bills and law codes to eliminate racial discrimination and discrimination against women; conventions on the rights of the child, against torture and other degrading treatment of punishment, the status of refugees and the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide; and declarations on the rights of persons belonging to national, ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, the right to development, and the rights of human rights defenders.
Emergency Assistance and Humanitarian response: all over the world. During 2001 alone, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs launched 19 inter-agency appeals, raising more than $1.4 billion to assist 44 million people in 19 countries and regions. The Office is headed by the United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator, who also serves as Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs. People who have fled war, persecution or human rights abuse ? refugees and displaced persons ? are assisted by UNHCR. At the start of 2001, there were some 22 million people of concern to UNHCR in more than 120 countries, including some 5.4 million internally displaced. Some 3.6 million Afghans accounted for 30 per cent of refugees worldwide, followed by 568,000 refugees from Burundi and 512,800 from Iraq.
Unicef: providing assistance and protections from children around the globe.
http://www.unicef.org/ Protection from torture, minor labor, rape and sexual violence, expecially in post-war environments.
Economic Development:
The UN Development Programme (UNDP), the UN's largest provider of grants for sustainable human development worldwide, is actively involved in attaining the millennium development goals. The UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) is the lead UN organization working for the long-term survival, protection and development of children. Active in some 160 countries, areas and territories, its programmes focus on immunization, primary health care, nutrition and basic education.Many other UN programmes work for development, in partnership with governments and NGOs. The World Food Programme (WFP) is the world's largest international food aid organization for both emergency relief and development. The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) is the largest international provider of population assistance. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) works to encourage sound environmental practices everywhere, and the UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) assists people living in health-threatening housing conditions.
To increase the participation of developing countries in the global economy, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) promotes international trade. UNCTAD also works with the World Trade Organization (WTO), a separate entity, in assisting developing countries' exports through the International Trade Centre.
Healthcare:
The Joint UN Programme on AIDS pools the expertise of eight UN agencies and programmes to combat an epidemic that has struck more than 57 million people worldwide. The UN System-Wide Special Initiative on Africa ? a 10-year, $25 billion endeavour launched in 1996 ? brings virtually all points of the UN into a common programme to ensure basic education, health services and food security in Africa. The Global Environment Facility, a $3.5 billion fund administered by UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank, helps developing countries carry out environmental programmes.
UNICEF, UNDP, the World Bank and WHO joined forces in 1998 to launch a new campaign to fight malaria, which kills more than 1 million people a year. Joint initiatives to expand immunization and develop new vaccines have enlisted the support of business leaders, philanthropic foundations, non-governmental organizations and governments, as well as UNICEF, WHO and the World Bank.
World Food Programme:
http://www.wfp.org/english/
Check the links, WFP food aid reached 113 million people in 80 countries in 2004, and is leading the fight against the number one risk to global health:starvation.
http://www.wfp.org/aboutwfp/introductio...nger_fight.asp?section=1&sub_section=1
And FAO:
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations leads international efforts to defeat hunger. Serving both developed and developing countries, FAO acts as a neutral forum where all nations meet as equals to negotiate agreements and debate policy. FAO is also a source of knowledge and information. We help developing countries and countries in transition modernize and improve agriculture, forestry and fisheries practices and ensure good nutrition for all. Since our founding in 1945, we have focused special attention on developing rural areas, home to 70 percent of the world's poor and hungry people. FAO's activities comprise four main areas:
And dozens other agencies helping the poorest around the world, promoting human rights, international law, economic development, helping refugees, doing research on the field...
The UN are not the diplomats sitting at the security council, but the thousands working all around the world, many of them for free. Some of the most highly educated, most brillant minds in the world choose every year to volunteer for the UN instead for getting 7 figures salaries in the private sector. Among them economists like Nobel prize winner Stieglitz or development expert Jeffrey Sachs. I have worked with these people, and seen volunteers saving hundreds of children in Angola, Chad or Somalia. I will not change my opinion on them and the amazing job they do every day based on some corrupt diplomat sitting in the security council.
Facebook
Twitter