General Question

EnzoX24's avatar

Is it time for the UN to drastically rethink its policies?

Asked by EnzoX24 (1986points) September 26th, 2008

In case you don’t know, the United Nations was formed after the League of Nations fell through. The LoN was formed after WWII to prevent another holocaust. However, it was poorly structured (the organization, not the building) and was later replaced by the United Nations.

Now the UN tries to act as the “therapist” for the rest of world, but lately it seems as though it is forgetting that it was originally established to protect innocent people from genocide. Case in point: Darfur.

The UN refuses to make any drastic attempts to help the people of Darfur for they believe in the concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the belief that a nation has the right to control a territory and anything within that territory. It is because of this that the UN refuses to make any decisive action toward freeing those being murdered en masse.

Now lets imagine that the UN was established during WWII. After Europe was freed from Germany’s grip, the concentration camps in those countries would have been disbanded. But not those in Germany. Because the UN would have believed that is Germany acted inside its own country there is nothing they can do.

Down in Africa, th United Nations is allowing another holocaust to happen, and they wont take any action to prevent it. The UN is neglecting to do what it was established to do, and because of that millions of innocent people are dying. Its time for the UN to actually step up and do something.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

4 Answers

boxing's avatar

The UN is merely an ill-runned charity group which I will never donate my money to, although my tax money does fund it somehow. Not to mention the unbelievable corruption.

robmandu's avatar

Of the U.N., Mark Steyn has said

In fact, however, the UN is a shamefully squalid organization whose corruption is almost impossible to exaggerate. ...try being the Balkans or Sudan or even Cyprus or anywhere where the problem’s been left to the United Nations. If you don’t want to bulk up your pension by skimming the Oil-for-Food program, no need to worry. Whatever your bag, the UN can find somewhere that suits—in West Africa, it’s Sex-for-Food, with aid workers demanding sexual services from locals as young as four; in Cambodia, it’s drug dealing; in Kenya, it’s the refugee extortion racket; in the Balkans, sex slaves. On a UN peace mission, everyone gets his piece.

The U.N. can be a useful tool at times. But it’s not something to trust. And it’s certainly not to be considered as a guiding light for freedom and democracy.

GAMBIT's avatar

I’m not sure if anyone really listens to the UN or if they have any real say when it comes down to decision making. I don’t remember Bush going to the UN and ask for permission to invade Irag and Afghanistan. It seems Russia felt a need to invade Georgia a few months ago but I doubt that they consulted with the UN first.

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achieving world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries and to provide a platform for dialogue.

I’m not sure if they are reaching there agendas but I do like the blue helmets.

Harp's avatar

In 2001, an independent international commission, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), was established under the aegis of the Canadian government to study this exact question.

The findings of the Commission are summarized here . There is an exhaustive examination of all of the pros and cons of UN intervention, which anyone seriously interested in these issues would do well to read.

One salient point made was that, quite aside from the philosophical and practical arguments for or against intervention, all substantive matters dealt with by the UN must be signed off by all of the five permanent members of the Security Council: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. Any one of them can veto an action if it feels that it is against their national interests. No other justification is needed. So, no matter what the policies of the UN may be regarding intervention, all of those diverse power blocks would have to be on board before any action could be taken. In the case of intervention in Darfur, China is unlikely to be persuaded.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther