Effectiveness of the United Nations

Chase · 2nd February 2010 07:35 PM

The United Nations receives a lot of criticism for its lack of effectiveness and is often satirized as writing "strongly worded" letters in response to crises. Although I would agree that the body is rather weak in regards to enforcing rulings, it has been the facilitator of many important diplomatic resolutions, namely Iran's recent agreement to allow for foreign inspection of its uranium.

The Bush administration's violation of UN law in going to war with Afghanistan demonstrated that the UN can do little to prevent a superpower from violating the laws that it has agreed to. This is only further shown by the International Criminal Court's inability to enforce its rulings with the UN police force. I think the function of the organization as a hub for diplomatic communication and agreement is superb, but its role in regulating military action around the world is embarrassing only because it is simply unable to enforce any of its rulings.

For the sake of the UN's legitimacy, I wish it would devote less focus to military entanglements around the world and more towards peace agreements and nuclear disarmament deals. But I still recognize the importance of the body and am perplexed to as why some are so hostile regarding the US's participation in the UN.

**teamosil** · 9th March 2010 11:10 PM

I agree with your assesment. If it were up to me, I'd take say 10% of our military budget and move that directly over to the UN. We don't need to be the world's policemen, but somebody needs to an we need to pay our share. Under Bush we even shorted them on our dues, which is ridiculous... We can't complain about them being ineffective if we're not willing to pitch in.

But, dealing with conflict is only a part of what they do. The World Health Organization, the World Food Programme, and UNICEF for example are divisions of the UN that do an incredible amount of positive for the world. The IAEA is pretty much our front lines of defense against nuclear proliferation amongst other things. The International Criminal Court is indispensible in bringing some sort of order to international law.

CrusaderRabbit08 · 9th March 2010 11:43 PM

Until the UN gets its own super power military, it'll remain ineffective.

One step they could take right now to level the playing field would be to eliminate the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council. That stupid rule is long overdue for elimination.

**Ferris** · 9th March 2010 11:59 PM

The total UN budget is a pathetic 30 billion dollars, about 8 of which goes to peacekeeping. The US gives its fair share of this cash, but it is rarely called on for missions because nations don't like US troops in their country for some reason (guess). So out of about 90,000 troops, police and observers, the US only shares about a third of a percent of this number. For the amount we're spending in Afghanistan and Iraq, we could send in UN troops to those and a couple dozen other countries.

UN Finance
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/co...08/mar08_1.pdf

**AgentM** · 10th March 2010 12:01 AM

The UN is only as effective as it's members (primarily the great powers) let it be, but no one really wants to give up their power or sovereignty to allow the UN to be a truly effective global force. Thus the UN is doomed to remain as mostly just a forum with very limited powers of action.

**Ferris** · 10th March 2010 12:03 AM

For about 90 billion a year, we could have afford a million man UN army. We could and would get the troops too from poor countries like Bangladesh.

**AgentM** · 10th March 2010 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by Ferris

For about 90 billion a year, we could have afford a million man UN army. We could and would get the troops too from poor countries like Bangladesh.

That would be a very effective international peacekeeping/peacemaking force. But a permanent UN military isn't realistic, unfortunately.

**Ferris** · 10th March 2010 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by AgentM

That would be a very effective international peacekeeping/peacemaking force. But a permanent UN military isn't realistic, unfortunately.

I guess I'm just saying that it doesn't work because we don't want it to work. It drives me crazy when I hear people say stuff like "international law is pointless ... so therefore we shouldn't bother making any," which is really circular logic given that it doesn't work because of that kind of attitude. Law only works because we give it the force of will and respect it. Give the UN that same respect and it could do so much more.

It is my opinion though that the UN Charter needs a complete rewrite to reflect the modern times, and for it to be flexible for the future. The whole UNSC veto deal doesn't work like it was intended and it's reason for existing, the Cold War, is over. The world now looks nothing like it did 60 years ago and it'll look nothing alike in another 60. We have to anticipate this, unless we want a string of League of Nation's dotting the future timeline.

**AgentM** · 10th March 2010 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by Ferris

i guess I'm just saying that it doesn't work because we don't want it to work. It drives me crazy when I hear people say stuff like "international law is pointless ... so therefore we shouldn't bother making any," which is really circular logic given that it doesn't work because of that kind of attitude. Law only works because we give it the will of force and respect it. Give the UN that same respect and it could do so much more.

It is my opinion though that the UN Charter needs a complete rewrite to reflect the modern times, and for it to be flexible for the future. The whole UNSC veto deal doesn't work like it was intended and it's reason for existing, the Cold War, is over. The world now looks nothing like it did 60 years ago and it'll look nothing alike in another 60. We have to anticipate this, unless we want a string of League of Nation's dotting the future timeline.

I totally agree, I get frustrated too. I think the UN should be drastically reformed. As it stands now, the UN isn't very effective or representative.

**Oddquine** · 10th March 2010 04:21 AM

Nothing in this thread so far with which I can disagree.

I'd remove the veto, rewrite the charter to make it more applicable to now and the future, rather than the post WWII era...... give the UN more teeth...and then get shot of NATO and any other military alliance which takes unilateral action, without UN sanction, upon themselves.

One single world wide consensus as to International Law, with the ability to resort to various sanctions to enforce it, is a recipe, properly applied, for as near world peace as we are ever likely to get......individual military alliances outside UN purview are a recipe for conflict, imo.

NATO, without the Cold War which it was initiated to combat, is an unnecessary complication and as much of an anachronism as the veto in the UN.