U.N. bashing thread

[DanishDynamite]

Though I've been on this forum for about 5 years now, there are still some views of right-wing Americans that I cannot get a handle on.

One of them is the hatred of the United Nations.

Yes, I understand that countries and philosophies and leaders that they don't like are members of the UN. These happen to exist in our world and I find it hard to see how one could have a United Nations which excludes that which other members don't like. How would that be a United Nations?

And yes, I understand that the Security Council of the UN has not had as many "successes" under its belt as could have been hoped for.

The UN is a lot more than the Security Council. And it is an institution which in many countries, including Denmark, carries authority. But let that lie for a minute.

What I don't understand is the direct frothing hatred of the UN.

Hence, you right-wingers out there, let this be the thread where you can not only unleash your venom but hopefully accompany it with an explanation.

 

[Huntster]

....Hence, you right-wingers out there, let this be the thread where you can not only unleash your venom but hopefully accompany it with an explanation.

Whenever there is a "U.N." military action, the U.S. has to provide the bulk of the cannon fodder, then later has to listen to the endless line of BS about how the U.S. is an aggressor.

Or how about the "U.N." demilitarized zone on the Korean Peninsula? How many Danes have served there over the past 55 years? How many French? How many Spaniards?

"U.N." my ass. The participant nations are anything but "united", and I'm tired of trying to make it work and getting penalized for it.

You like it? Set it up a new one in Copenhagen and let us close down the one in New York. And the next time Joe Tyrant decides to kill off his internal opposition, you send in thousands of Danes to set it straight.

I'm just tired of it.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Whenever there is a "U.N." military action, the U.S. has to provide the bulk of the cannon fodder, then later has to listen to the endless line of BS about how the U.S. is an aggressor.

It wasn't my intention to get involved at this early stage, but I'm up late tonight and there is little else going on.

Just want to clear up a point. Any armed forces working under the mandate of a UN Security Council resolution are forces which have been volunteered by the member nation from where the forces originate. Volunteered.

Or how about the "U.N." demilitarized zone on the Korean Peninsula? How many Danes have served there over the past 55 years? How many French? How many Spaniards?

Have Danish, French or Spanish governments been asked for troops in this area?

"U.N." my ass. The participant nations are anything but "united", and I'm tired of trying to make it work and getting penalized for it.

Certainly the nations of the world are not united. That was one of the reasons for establishing the UN.

How are you penalized for volunteering troops to the UN Security Council operations?

You like it? Set it up a new one in Copenhagen and let us close down the one in New York. And the next time Joe Tyrant decides to kill off his internal opposition, you send in thousands of Danes to set it straight.

Danes have sent in thousands of troops under UN mandate.

I'm just tired of it.

Why?

 

[RyanRoberts]

This kind of thing doesn't help.

Not that I'm a Yank, but I share the attitude towards the UN of many Americans. The UN is fundamentally corrupt and corrupting institution staffed by people on the make or people with an axe to grind (usually a left handed one). It amazes me that more Europeans do not see the UN (and particularly men like Kofi Annan) for what they are. For an organisation that garners so much respect, it has little to no accountability either. Financial misdemeanors that would bring down a democratic government are routine for the UN.

 

[DanishDynamite]

This kind of thing doesn't help.

Not that I'm a Yank, but I share the attitude towards the UN of many Americans. The UN is fundamentally corrupt and corrupting institution staffed by people on the make or people with an axe to grind (usually a left handed one).

Yes, it is most probably staffed with people who have an axe to grind. It is afterall staffed by diplomats from countries with varying policies.

As to your contention that it is fundamentally corrupt, could you expand on what that means and your evidence for same.

It amazes me that more Europeans do not see the UN (and particularly men like Kofi Annan) for what they are.

Which is .... what exactly?

For an organisation that garners so much respect, it has little to no accountability either. Financial misdemeanors that would bring down a democratic government are routine for the UN.

Have you had a look at the pork and/or unaccounted money in the US government budget or the EU budget?

Is the UN substantially worse?

 

[Mike B.]

This kind of thing doesn't help.

Not that I'm a Yank, but I share the attitude towards the UN of many Americans. The UN is fundamentally corrupt and corrupting institution staffed by people on the make or people with an axe to grind (usually a left handed one). It amazes me that more Europeans do not see the UN (and particularly men like Kofi Annan) for what they are. For an organisation that garners so much respect, it has little to no accountability either. Financial misdemeanors that would bring down a democratic government are routine for the UN.

The UN is what it is; I am not against it. I don't want to abolish it or move it.

I think it is important to have a place to air diplomatic grievances, etc.

But I sympathize with the above post.

I don't see how the UN commands the unique moral authority, as some would have it. It is an institution like any other in the world. There have been enough corruption and questionable behavior to knock it off its pedastal.

 

[RyanRoberts]

As to your contention that it is fundamentally corrupt, could you expand on what that means and your evidence for same.

The organisation is accountable to nobody, except possibly the US as it contributes such a large percentage of its budget. Such an atmosphere, along with its nature as an institution of considerable power and influence fosters corruption on almost every level.

10 billion dollars is estimated to have been distributed in kickbacks during the oil for food program. 1.4 billion dollars passed through Kofi Annans office, but there are no public records of where any of this cash went.

Which is .... what exactly?

Politicians and bureaucrats with little accountability, many peoples usual cynicism about career politicians goes out of the window when considering the UN.

Have you had a look at the pork and/or unaccounted money in the US government budget or the EU budget?

Is the UN substantially worse?

Than the EU? Possibly not, but the EU doesn't make as many life and death judgements. Again the EU has little or no democratic accountability. At least the partisan nature of democratic national politics helps to expose and punish corruption.

 

[a_unique_person]

This kind of thing doesn't help.

Not that I'm a Yank, but I share the attitude towards the UN of many Americans. The UN is fundamentally corrupt and corrupting institution staffed by people on the make or people with an axe to grind (usually a left handed one). It amazes me that more Europeans do not see the UN (and particularly men like Kofi Annan) for what they are. For an organisation that garners so much respect, it has little to no accountability either. Financial misdemeanors that would bring down a democratic government are routine for the UN.

It amazes me that people won't see Kofi for what he really is, either. The UN has problems, but if it did not exist, it would be neccessary to create it. No other organisation on the planet could claim to have the ability to rid the world of smallpox.

 

[Mike B.]

No sense in stepping into an Israel thread quagmire...

 

[a_unique_person]

The organisation is accountable to nobody, except possibly the US as it contributes such a large percentage of its budget. Such an atmosphere, along with its nature as an institution of considerable power and influence fosters corruption on almost every level.

10 billion dollars is estimated to have been distributed in kickbacks during the oil for food program. 1.4 billion dollars passed through Kofi Annans office, but there are no public records of where any of this cash went.



Politicians and bureaucrats with little accountability, many peoples usual cynicism about career politicians goes out of the window when considering the UN.



Than the EU? Possibly not, but the EU doesn't make as many life and death judgements. Again the EU has little or no democratic accountability. At least the partisan nature of democratic national politics helps to expose and punish corruption.

The single biggest business involved in cash for oil was the Australian Wheat Board, until recently an government owned enterprise controlled by the conservative Australian Government.


There is no evidence that Kofi had anything to do with oil for food.

 

[Mike B.]

No other organisation on the planet could claim to have the ability to rid the world of smallpox.

Well, since it is often said that the UN is only as effective as its member states when it fails, can't it be said as well if it does something well?

 

[a_unique_person]

True, no single state could have rid the world of smallpox, it was the efforts of all states, co-ordinated by the UN, and acting in concert with the UN, that made this historic achievement a reality.

 

[RyanRoberts]

There is no evidence that Kofi had anything to do with oil for food.

His son certainly did though. It would be nice to have a neutral party look over his accounts too, just in case. There's also the more recent matter of the $500,000 dubai environmental prize he 'won'.

 

[a_unique_person]

His son certainly did though. It would be nice to have a neutral party look over his accounts too, just in case. There's also the more recent matter of the $500,000 dubai environmental prize he 'won'.

So, there is no evidence against Kofi? Right. The AWB is ok, though, apparently.

 

[DanishDynamite]

The organisation is accountable to nobody, except possibly the US as it contributes such a large percentage of its budget. Such an atmosphere, along with its nature as an institution of considerable power and influence fosters corruption on almost every level.

The organization is accountable to its member states.

10 billion dollars is estimated to have been distributed in kickbacks during the oil for food program. 1.4 billion dollars passed through Kofi Annans office, but there are no public records of where any of this cash went.

And?

Yes, I too dispise corruption, but don't you feel there are greater perspectives to consider?

Politicians and bureaucrats with little accountability, many peoples usual cynicism about career politicians goes out of the window when considering the UN.

In what sense?

Than the EU? Possibly not, but the EU doesn't make as many life and death judgements. Again the EU has little or no democratic accountability. At least the partisan nature of democratic national politics helps to expose and punish corruption.

You only seem to view the UN on the basis of its Security Council function. Ok. Do you think that corruption is a sígnificant factor in the Security Council's deliberations?

 

[firecoins]

1. UN employees are unaccountable. Kofi Annan's son was a man behind the parts of the oil for food scandals. There are many organizational problems within international organizations.

2. I am not thrilled with an international court. I feel politics will behind "criminals" than actual law. I do feel biases against the US will result in US troops being held more accountable than other troops. I also believe non-US troops will find themselves in the same position in other instances.
Small countries have the same power as big countries in the general assembly. The Securty council is dominated by big countries. I don't believe you can give any real power to such organizations.

3. Human rights abusers sit on the Security Council permanently. China kills Tibetans, jails gov't critics and suppresses free speech. The US takes terrorists & suspects and holds them in secret locations without charges or any accountability indefiantly. Russia has been known to torture captives themselves.

 

[RyanRoberts]

The organization is accountable to its member states.

And none of whom individually have the power to censure the administration.

Yes, I too dispise corruption, but don't you feel there are greater perspectives to consider?

You don't think rampant corruption might be a sign of a deeper cynicism and ethical malaise? Surely the UN requires a great degree of moral authority?

In what sense?

In the sense that most Europeans rate politicians somewhere between lawyers and estate agents. I doubt the same is true of UN bureaucrats.

You only seem to view the UN on the basis of its Security Council function. Ok. Do you think that corruption is a significant factor in the Security Council's deliberations?

No. It is mainly a factor for the administration of UN mandates and the day to day operation of the beurocracy, not the outcomes of bargaining between representatives of member states. The concept of 'Corruption' cannot really applied to relations between member states, diplomacy is all about horse trading in one form or another.

 

[Huntster]

The organisation is accountable to nobody, except possibly the US as it contributes such a large percentage of its budget......

Imagine the cost of Korea over the past 50 years! Who pays for that? Does the U.N. even contribute financially? Like I pointed out above, it isn't just money. American soldiers have been there (the whole time) at the rate of 30,000 at any one time. Who else is there?

 

[firecoins]

Imagine the cost of Korea over the past 50 years! Who pays for that? Does the U.N. even contribute financially? Like I pointed out above, it isn't just money. American soldiers have been there (the whole time) at the rate of 30,000 at any one time. Who else is there?

The South Koreans....okay thats a joke.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Imagine the cost of Korea over the past 50 years! Who pays for that? Does the U.N. even contribute financially? Like I pointed out above, it isn't just money. American soldiers have been there (the whole time) at the rate of 30,000 at any one time. Who else is there?

The South Koreans....okay thats a joke.

Appreciated.

Actually, they're no joke. I'm told ROK soldiers are pretty fearsome.