Official Poll: Does the UN suck?

[The diplomat]

There is a thread on whether the UN sucks and they mentionned having a poll. So I thought I would beat them to it and post the first official poll on the subject.
Let's see what the OT really thinks about the UN.

[Spec]

Basicly, the UN is a good idea...but if it has no power, whats the use for it?

Spec.

[Winston]

The international security and stability part of UN, i.e most notably the Security Council in its present form is a joke.

The development and co-operation part of the organization seems to be ok and improving.

I guess that amounts to a 'so-so' rating overall. United Nations matters are still boooring though.

[Shi Huangdi]

Yup. According to its structure, it gives the likes of Russia and China too much power. It is good if it can be weakened so as to remove this potential constraint on our power.

[Dis]

also the UN has no oversight. There are still people wondering where all that money for the oil for food program went. I have a suspicion that a lot of the money is not being used the way it is intended to be used.

But I don't think the U.N. should be abolished. I guess it is good for humanitarian crises and such. But it can never be as effective at solving international military crisis because of the politics involved.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

The fact that we have the leader in the world militarily does not mean that a fine idealistic idea that UN is should be abandoned... infact it is the only hope for the future of the world that there is a place or organization to discuss the "differences" and agree about them in one way or the other if we want to avoid selfdestruction... or at least wiping off most of the population in a moment of madness...

[GePap]

As winston said, the development arm (Unicef, Who, and others) do vital work aorund the world and have greatly helped the poor of this world, whle the veto power and other constraints meant to make national soverignty pre-eminent weaken its ability to carry out collective peace actions: only when all 5 veto members agree on a course of action can it happe. The way to fix that would be to remove the Veto power.

[Az]

Humanitarian missions etc.

A one world government.

[DanS]

I have the nagging feeling that the humanitarian missions breed dependance and corruption. But I don't know if USAID does any better, for instance.

[Kropotkin]

The distribution of power on security issues in the UN is the result of a specific historical situation. Past experiences in the history of established world orders has shown that they have a tendency to survive longer than the situation that was the cause of it creation. That's not enough a reason to give up on the entire project though.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
I have the nagging feeling that the humanitarian missions breed dependance and corruption. But I don't know if USAID does any better, for instance.

Only if done badly (ie, how most states do it, as opposed to the UN bureacracies that handle the money themselves). Unicef and WHO have saved countless lives, and thanks to them Polio and Smallpox have been mostly removed form the world. If we would only pour in as much money to get Malaria.

[Az]

The existance of the UN is a result of a specific historical situation. It wasn't created in good faith in the first place.

[Sandman]

The UN's suckiness is inversely proportional to it's power, within reason.

[loinburger]

This should have been a multiple-choice poll.

[PLATO]

I really don't have a problem with the UN in its present form. The aid agencies do as good a job as is possible given the vast geography and political landscapes that they cover.

Even the Security Council has its place. Is everyone going to agree on every conflict? No. The US has just shown that countries can proceed on their national interests without the blessing of the UN. If the UN does authorize an action, which it rarely does, then it has an effect of minimizing world polarization. Both of these abilities are good things IMHO.

Until world standards of living are more equal, then national soverignty will remain a priority for many. Equalizing these standards can only come through income growth and development (as opposed to redistribution of wealth). Here the UN can play a vital role as well by promoting free trade and providing a venue for treaty negotiation.

Will the UN always be successful? Obviously not. It can and does serve a valuable purpose in its present form. We just have to understand what that purpose is and not try to make it into something that it is not.