Has the UN failed?

[MRT144]

krammerman, if that happens could you stand underneath a kettle, id fancy some human heated tea. and i know that sounds wrong on so many levels

[Dis]

I heard something today that I completely forgot.

The U.N never came up with a resolution on that Yugoslavia thing did they?

The U.S. just went in and started bombing. If I remember correctly, they did have NATO approval.

It's funny how we did that with Bill Clinton as president and no one complained. Now we want to do the same thing with a republican president and everyone complains. I don't get it.

In any case what this shows, is that the U.N. was hurting even in the late 90's. They have been inneffective for a while.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Define "fail."

Well, Iraq is the point so...

Fail would mean one state or another using a veto to stop a war. OK. Wars aren't so good, usually. Usually, they mean death for average people and so they should be avoided. There are other kinds of wars though.

There are wars that prevent even more people from dying than would have if there had been no war. Now, you could say that the threat of Saddam lobbing a nuke or some other dirty weapons at Israel isn't a big enough threat to justify a war. OK. What about the Iraqi people though?

It is UN sanctions that have reportedly caused a half million or more Iraqis to die. Do you think that US combat arms would kill more? How many more Iraqis must die due to sanctions before it would be humane to end his regime by force of arms?

Fail? Failure would be to continue the status quo where a madman is relatively free to pursue the aquisition of nuclear and other weapons capable of massive destruction of human life. Failure would be to decry the removal of that madman because it might cost some lives when the same body that forbids action is the very body that mandates sanctions that have cost countless thousands already.

Failure would be for some members of the UNSC to use that body as a place to promote their own economic interests over the interests of Iraq's neighbours and the interests of the people of Iraq themselves. That would be a failure. It would also be hypocrisy on a massive scale.

[gunkulator]

"It is UN sanctions that have reportedly caused a half million or more Iraqis to die."

Um no. Saddam always had the power to end those sanctions whenever he wanted. This tendency of looking at the punishment but not at the actions that resulted in the punishment is troublesome.

Simply put. Saddam is a brutal dictator who has happily starved, gasses and conscripted his populace to support his evil policies. Throwing money and food his way only feeds the evil monster. It does nothing to get rid of the root cause.

The UN should be a the forefront of condemning him. France, Germany and Russia did not all simultaneously wake up one morning and embrace pacifism here. They want the Saddam's oil money via infrastructure contracts and they don't care what kind of a monster he is, as long as the money keeps rolling in. For this reason, the UN has failed.

Not the US is any better. Bush's oil buddies aren't getting a red cent because Saddam, quite logically, isn't going to deal with Bush II.

[MrBaggins]

The UN doesn't have any power in and of itself. Its only power is that confered on it, by its member states.

A number of resolutions have been tabled by the UN, regarding Iraqs proliferation of WMD's, prohibited ballistic missiles and UAV's. These are in the name of national and regional security.

Iraq has, for 12 years ignored the UN. The only entity it hasn't ignored, is the US (or US-led coalition.)

The only reason that there is any compliance AT ALL, is because the US are building up troops preparing to invade. Prior to the US build up, Iraq did not and would not permit weapons inspectors into the country... It had thrown them out 12 years ago.

The US, UK and a number of other countries want full and complete compliance now, of the numerous resolutions, or they are prepared to ignore the UN. The french, germans and russians will accept less stringent compliance.

When it comes to matters of national and regional security, the highest standard, not the lowest, should be the accepted norm.

The US and a number of other countries, is giving the UNSC a chance to fulfil their obligations to impose compliance. If they do not, then they will take matters into their own hands.

A resolution threatening 'serious consequences' means nothing if those consequences don't materialize after a material breach... and the Iraqi's are clearly in material breach, by reconstituting their weapons program (rebuilding the casting chambers for their missile program as a point in case.)

The UN, will, by not enforcing the highest desired level of compliance, become irrelevant.

Its fully within the rights of the US and other nations to unilaterally act to ensure strategic stability, AS sovereign nations. Independent action should NOT be necessary, but if the UN will not enforce its own resolutions strictly, AND if these issues are important enough to these nations, then these nations will take independent action.

The UN needs to enforce its own resolutions. Not in a week. Not in a month. Now. Completely.

If it does not, then yes... the UNSC is irrelevant.

MrBaggins

[gunkulator]

"Its fully within the rights of the US and other nations to unilaterally act to ensure strategic stability, AS sovereign nations. Independent action should NOT be necessary, but if the UN will not enforce its own resolutions strictly, AND if these issues are important enough to these nations, then these nations will take independent action."

The US is not the UN. It is up to the UNSC that created the resolution calling for "serious consequences" to define what those are to be. If they decide that serious consequences = nothing, then so be it. If the US insists on acting due to a UN mandate, it must suffer the restrictions imposed by that body. Anything else is pure unilateralism and we should not kid ourselves otherwise.

That being said, equating serious consequences with the status quo is a de facto faliure of UN of significantly collosal proportions. The UN is in serious danger of being reduced to nothing more than a way for well connected diplomats to live a life of luxury and leisure whilst avoiding parking tickets. I'm not advocating war, but 12 years of nothing more than figure wagging and stern statements against an unqualifiably evil regime is a sorry legacy.

[MrBaggins]

The US can operate independently of the UN. It doesn't need UN permission to go to war with another nation state.

It just so happens that its trying to resolve the matter through the UN first.

[Urban Ranger]

I posit that the OP asks a meaningless question.

When you say X fails, it means X does not or cannot perform the function it is supposed to perform. Herein lies the rub: to know that whether X fails, we must compare a situation where X is in use to one where X isn't.

For example, a lightbulb fails when it can no longer gives off light. Here, we know the scenario where the lightbulb works, so we can compare to the scenario where the lightbulb doesn't work.

However, this is not the case with the UN. More specificially, we do not - and cannot - know how the world would be like without it. To all we know, cockroaches might be running the place without UN.

Since we do not have a control case to compare against, asking whether the UN has failed or not is simply meaningless.

[MrBaggins]

True, but in a specific instance, the UN has failed to remove and prevent the proliferation of WMD's, BM's and UAV's in Iraq in a finite period... the last 12 years, given any amount of resolutions and any statement of 'serious consequences'.

Only ACTUAL consequences have punitive value with Saddam's regime, hence... the UN has failed in this specific case.

If its failed here... why won't and can't it fail in the future, in similar circumstances?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
True, but in a specific instance, the UN has failed to remove and prevent the proliferation of WMD's, BM's and UAV's in Iraq in a finite period... the last 12 years, given any amount of resolutions and any statement of 'serious consequences'.

How has it failed if we have no idea what would happen without the UN? Iraq might have blown the hell out of the place. Compare to that, isn't it a success we have at the moment?

[Japher]

It already failed. While we all want to say that if it bends to Bush's demands than it will fail, I say that it already failed by requiring Bush to even issue demands.

It has already failed as far as Bush, and thus the American ppl, are concerned, and by losing such a big support it has made a big error, and therefore did not acheive what it set out to do. Thus, it failed.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


How has it failed if we have no idea what would happen without the UN? Iraq might have blown the hell out of the place. Compare to that, isn't it a success we have at the moment?

This has nothing to do with 'blowing the hell out of the place'.

Its to do with non-proliferation of restricted weapons.

They had them, they still have them, and built more.

The aim is for them ultimately not to use them BUT that is to be achieved by them NOT HAVING THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

This is something that is CLEARLY measurable.

The UN has failed to disarm Iraq in the last 12 years.

[dannubis]

the un is useless because it has failed to comply to the foreign politics of the american governement ...

nato is outdated because it has failed to comply immediately to the foreign politics of the american governement ...

the kyoto agreements are useless because they do not match the american economical interests

the international tribunal in den haag is not recognised by the us because american citizens can't be judged by a foreign institution ... (read the american governement doesn't want to have to be kept responsible for its actions)

anyone sees a constant in this ?

it's not that these institutions are useless per se, but the are made pretty useless because the most important international player doesn't want to comply ...

[gunkulator]

"How has it failed if we have no idea what would happen without the UN? Iraq might have blown the hell out of the place. Compare to that, isn't it a success we have at the moment?"

That's a pretty thin soup you're offering up here. As an analogy, consider a parent who provides the physical needs of a child but fails to discipline the child when he/she misbehaves. It doesn't take long for the child to realize that parent's threats of punishment can blissful be ignored. Yes, the utter lack of any parent whatsoever would result in the demise of the child but on another level we are fundamentally talking about a failure in the parent.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by dannubis
anyone sees a constant in this ?

it's not that these institutions are useless per se, but the are made pretty useless because the most important international player doesn't want to comply ...

American loses alot of it's pull in a peaceful world.
Look at the fear mongering in the US (ie CNN etc.)
that should be good for a few billion for the pentagon.
They NEED an enemy (Russia, Iran, Iraq, NK,.... France?)

The UN is a success, they've delayed the Iraqi invasion for how long now?, may even be peramently delayed. They've forced the US to jusitfy itself before an assault.
and IMHO world public opinion supports miltiary action
ONLY with a UN mandate.

It is doing what it is designed to do. Be a brake on war.
That's why the US is peeved.