Like the UN. It needs more power. Puzzled at your hatred.

The UN can have more power when it can fund itself. Currently we are the UNs army and we are it's bank.
This means when someone comes to the UN and asks for somethign the US is the one who must take care of it (either financially or militarily)

So my solution is let the UN prove it can take care of itself. For now it can not operate without the US, so IMO it has no power.

 

glynch -- here's my problem with it...

you say you want to give it more power...power to a government works like debits and credit...credit their power, debit my liberty. that's why you have the founders of this country talking about government as a necessary evil.

the UN is an indiscriminate organization. are you a nation? great! you're in! do you turn nerve gas on your own people? great! we'll put you on the commission on the control of weapons of mass destruction. did your leader fund terrorists who brought down a civilian jetlliiner? great! you're on the human rights commission!

government, in order to have authority, has to have some credibility. it simply doesn't when these jokers have a "say" in how the world is run.

also...ultimately everyone is out for his own best interests. we saw that so vividly displayed in this debate over iraq. every nation had its own interest...and the un was utterly worthless. it was nothing more than a debating society.

also...government should be in lockstep with the will of the people. i've heard others criticize the US for not participating more in world courts. as a lawyer, that baffles me. why would i turn over judicial authority to countries who don't respect the same concepts of liberty, all wrapped up in equal protection, due process and similar concepts? and why would those who don't value those things want to turn over judicial authority to a group that does? ultimately, i don't want leaders making decisions for me who don't respect those viewpoints. and i'm not willing to lay them down.

government is best when it exists with the consent of the governed. but i'm not personally electing these delegates from france, russia, china, etc. they have zero accountability to us as americans. so why do i want them to have any control over the leaders i HAVE elected? if i vote in a candidate and he makes a decision they disagree with i care only in so much as the relationship with that nation is damaged. but, ultimately, if i value something else above that relationship, i've elected my leader to act decisively.

i'm rambling here...sorry for that...and i'm not entirely certain what you mean when you say the UN should have MORE powers. but these are my problems with the UN. i could probably think of some more!

 

Two things I think would help.

have the military arm of the UN be more balanced..not just have 90% Americans/10% everyone else. As was said before, we end up being the strong arm of the UN in almost every instance.

take away unilateral veto power. it isnt right that one country with something to lose can block an action that might have otherwise passed by a majority of the council.
Note that I am being somewhat theoretical here...Im not sayin that the Iraq thing would have passed by a full vote of the UN even with France\Germany\Russia's objections.

I do think that the UN is the right idea, it just has problems that need to be worked out if it truly aspires to be a stabilizing force in the world.

 

http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2002/12955.htm

We fund 22% of the general fund, compared to 20% from Japan, 10% from Germany, and 3% from Spain and Canada.

In addition we put in another $1.9B to fund other groups of the UN (like UNICEF). Granted some of that is agriculture subsidies so we can support our farmers.

Also people point to that the US only has like 1% of the regular US forces, but in time sof emergency it is the US forces which comes in and represents 80% of the forces going in.

So again my point is we fund more than 30% (overall) of the UN. If we pull out it can not support itself.

 

Why have permanent members of a security council with veto powers? Why hand a rotating member control (like Syria? like Belgium?) of your foreign policy? Why would you let France, Russia, China, GB and Syria dictate US policy. The idea is absurd. The proof is right before your eyes. UN votes are dictated by interest group coalitions, that seek to gang up and extract resources from soft "Member Nations." There's absolutely no payoff for shoveling money there, and no agreements you may make have any validity or teeth. It's much better to go it alone, than work through that bankrupt vestige of world war.

Just look at the "oil for food" program. You want more of that? Sure Saddam, keep murdering people, so long as we get our two percent commission on oil sales for "Food".

 

When all of the governments represented in the UN are freely elected democratic governments, then we can have a discussion about this topic.

You can't give dictators the same status as a freely elected official.

Also, who would fund it?



DD

 

But isn't the UN a way to hold those dictators to more humane standards? By getting dictators to sign up for the UN they are agreeing to certain standards. Thus there is at least something to hold them accountable to, as well as a means to exert pressure against them should they break their agreement.

Does it always work perfectly? Not at all but it does have a purpose.

The thing I don't like about bashing the UN because of something like Iraq is that people are only focussing on the military enforcement side of things, and ignoring the good humanitarian work, and human rights watching that it does.

 

I live in Odessa, Texas (15-20 minutes from Midland). I'm a preacher. I'm sure you (and most other people) would label me a fundamentalist, although I don't choose to use labels like that. I have never once heard anything like this. It certainly doesn't seem to be fundamentalist preacher phenomenon in Midland, Texas. How many preachers did your friend hear saying things like this? If it's one or two, so what? That does not a pattern make. If it's just one, two, or even a handful, it would be like someone saying, " A friend of mine used to hear preachers saying things like [insert peculiar David Koresh teaching here] in Waco." It doesn't have anything to do with the majority of the preachers or Christians in that city.

To be fare, I can imagine some preachers who are heavy into premillennialism making such claims--in Missouri, Texas, or anywhere else.

I will tell you that I don't really like the UN, but it doesn't have anything to do with religion. It has to do with ineptitude. What good are resolutions when you have no intention of enforcing them? I'm sure there are some things the UN does well, but I must admit that I don't know what they are. It really does seem to me that there is some corruption at the UN. I don't know how widespread it is, but it's there.

Something else I don't like about the UN is that the US pays the majority of the bills. (Explain to me again why we ought to increase funding to pay for more UN troops.) We basically pay for other countries to support their own interests. Germany, France, Russia and China would be crazy not to want everything to go through the UN--little investment, big returns. From the way some people treat things, you're led to belive that the big, bad US just tries to get in the way of those altruistic souls from these other countries.

 

One issue to consider is that ANY governing body is run by people - and, unfortunatly people are corruptable. It sounds nice to say "give the U.N. more power" to do good, but you'd really be giving the people in the U.N. more power and there is no guarantee that they would use that power responsibly and then, how does one country boot them out?

This holds true for governments in general and that's why many conservatives favor smaller government - the less power the government has the less power (or oportunity to abuse said power) the people <i>in</i> government have. The U.S. probably has a government who's members are most easily changed by it's citizens but that still doesn't stop crooked people from getting in and abusing power. Some get away with it (i.e. Clinton) and some don't (i.e. Nixon). (Btw, that last sentence was a joke!)

 

I've never understood how people can complain that our personal freedoms are currently at risk yet at the same time favor relinquishing part of our sovereignty to a body that we didn't elect and wouldn't necessarily respect our Constitution as law.

 

Excellent point!!

 

Which part of our sovereignty have we given up to the U.N.?

In fact one of the things the U.N., at least in principle, does is to protect nations sovereignty.

 

Glynch:

I do not claim it to be undemocratic, it is undemocratic. How many elections have they held for chairmanships of important committees? How many elections for a SC seat? Which of the Permanent 5 were elected to their seats?

Exactly how many representatives there have been elected? Zero, they are all appointees.

As for withering away - I think the UN needs to realize its limitations. As a body entrusted with maintaining global security, it is a *total* and complete failure. # of wars it has prevented? Zero. # of wars it has successfully fought? One (Gulf War I).

It has many other uses: it is a great place for diplomats to get together and talk things out/share ideas; it is great for humanitarian, health, and human rights missions. Couple other non-security related missions. But for its primary purpose - maintaining global security and peace - it is a dismal failure, and is more often a hindrance than an asset in that pursuit.

We provide the largest chunk of its funding. Without our pennies it would wither away into insignificance.

Glynch, the UN relies on member nations to volunteer troops. The problem is not that there is a lack of funds for the troops; when they are needed and gotten the funds to support them will be found. The problem is that no one wants to contribute their troops to UN missions, at least not beyond the token company or platoon here or there just so they can say that they participated.

FB:

You've got to be kidding. Did Saddam live up to those standards? Does Kim Jong-Il live up to them? How about the mullahs in Iran? The former Taliban? The Chinese? Wherever you have a lack of democracy you have a lack of accountability, and the regime there will do whatever it wants. There is no historical basis for the notion that the UN keeps dictators in check. In practice it is completely powerless in that endeavor without the US footing the bill and sending the guns.

Leave the military stuff to NATO, the coming EDF, and the US (and Russia/China where appropriate), and let the UN cover all of the nonmilitary aspects, and we've got a good formula. The UN is just totally incompetent when it comes to security matters.

Personally, I think we've moved into a new era of international security paradigms. From here on out it would seem that it will not be the UN that decides on and acts on security matters, but more likely ad hoc alliances between nations that share interests. Expect the Europeans to create a EDF that will at times counter and other times compliment NATO/the US; expect an Asian axis of South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan to counter China; expect a new understanding between the US and Eastern Europe to counter both Russia and France and the growing Islamic presence in that area; expect a Franco-German-Russian axis to counter the US.

We were wondering what would replace the Cold War paradigm; we knew that we wouldn't be the sole power forever. It will be alliances that replace the superpower fight, with the US being the center of gravity on the democratic side of the line. Expect China to eventually become the center of gravity for the other side.

The UN is a relic of the Cold War. Yes, it still has some utility, and should not be abolished - or completely blown off. But as a security-keeping organization - those days are over.

 

Sounds hauntingly familiar!

 

Had we not invaded Iraq we would have surrendered our right to defend ourselves, our right to eliminate threats to our security. This is what it is about. Does the UN have the authority to tell us what we can and cannot do? Does an unelected body of technocrats have the moral authority to tell an elected body of representatives what to do?

Look, if we're doing something stupid and immoral like invading Sierra Leone to capture its diamond mines, then I'm with the UN when they tell our government to cease such activity. But if they are simply telling us not to eliminate a threat to our (and global) security out of spite (France), then they have absolutely no moral authority to do so IMHO. It depends on the situation to an extent, but largely IMO it has to do with whether or not the authority comes from the people. The people of this country, that is.

 

The Taliban is an example of the UN going in and taking them out. That was a good job by the UN. That is agreat historical example of the UN keeping oppressive regimes in check. They were working on Saddam when the U.S. pushed things their own way, so what could have happened is unknown. I've already said it doesn't work perfectly but the idea is to hold the dictators and corrupt regimes in check. Israel isn't following through with their end of the bargain either, and they aren't being called on it. The reason why the UN isn't effective there is because of the U.S. So perhaps if the U.S. would start upholding the principles of the UN, and take a real leadership role to see that the UN works as it was intended then perhaps we'd all be a lot better off.

Just looking at the Rockets board on Clutch we see that when things go bad, people tend to lay blame at Steve, and Rudy a lot. They are the teams leaders. So if there is something wrong with the UN let's look at the U.S. and see what we can do about changing and improving it. I like people and nations that take responsibility and take action. Let's do that where the UN is concerned.

As far as the other oppressive regimes you list, part of the reason we have information on just how oppressive they are is because of the UN human rights watch, and data collected by the UN that you claim is ineffective.

 

I'm confused. How did the U.N. go in and take the Taliban out? How was the U.N. working on taking Saddam out? And where was the U.N. with regards to Kosovo, Samalia, Rwanda, etc...?

 

The UN did go in take the Taliban out lead by the U.S. That was a UN sanctioned action. The UN(rightly or wrongly)imposed sanctions on Saddam, had inspectors in Iraq, and were willing to entertain more resolutions even ones that would call on military action to enforce their resolution, but under a different time table. The last figure mentioned was 30 days. However, that wasn't acceptable and it was never played out to fruition. In regards to Somalia, the UN was there with troops. Rwanda? Where was the U.S.?