U.N. bashing thread

[Darat]

http://www.google.com/search?q=UN+a...ient=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

How does that prove his contention?

 

[Darth Rotor]

How does that prove his contention?

Of course, a link to ADL positions on anti-Semitism is bound to be objective.

ROFL

The Great Silencer for 50, Alex.

DR

 

[DanishDynamite]

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.

The employees are accountable to their boss as in any other organization. And the boss is accountable tis boss and so on up to the top boss, whi is accountable to the General Assembly.

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.

You don't think the International Court will make its judgements based on evidence? That is the only question which be of interest regarding an International Court. Any number of people, soldiers, leaders, etc, etc can be accussed of any number of things and it makes no difference if people or countries with an axe to grind will accuse American citizens of anything under the sun. It makes no difference if the court rules according to the evidence.

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.

I agree. There are a lot problems around the world which need to be solved. Do you think not having a forum where such problems can discussed would be better?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I agree. There are a lot problems around the world which need to be solved. Do you think not having a forum where such problems can discussed would be better?

The UN already provides that forum. The question is, should it be more than that, and is it fulfilling all of its functions effectively? The answer to that last seems to lie in the eye of the beholder.

DR

 

[DanishDynamite]

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

Correct. Such is the working of an organization with a democratic voting plenum.

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?

I'm sure there's a lot of cynicism, etc. So what?

The authority of the UN in general stems from the decisions being made by a majority of the world's countries and a majority of its population.

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

Are we talking about bureaucrats within the UN organization or about the representatives each country sends to the UN?

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.

So what are is your beef? That there is corruption in general?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Judging by its decisions, now that it had eradicated smallpox, it's doing its best to rid the world of that other pest, the jews. Last month, for instance, they let a holocaust-denying genocidally-antisemitic tyrant who openly calls for the destruction of israel to give a speech in the UN in an attempt to look "moderate".

Yeah, and next week they might let a war-loving, free-choice-hating, religious Creationism-is-right Republican speak as well. Oh the humanity...

Perhaps he and the UN can work out a compromise: he would agree that some jews were killed in the holocaust, and in addition he will only genocide half the jews in israel with nuclear weapons. In return, the UN will promise yet more anti-israeli resolutions, as a temporary measure.

Perhaps you could say what exactly is about the UN that you hate. If what you hate is that people of all opinions can hold speeches there, OK.

 

[DanishDynamite]

The UN reminds me of the Federation in "Star Trek". They talk, talk, talk, but have a horror of "interfering". You're telling me that all the nations of the world, acting together, can't stop the genocide in Darfur? Oh, but we wouldn't want to be aggressive. Let's schedule a commission to hold talks on having a dialogue about opening negotiations to have a panel discussion about holding a hearing in 2010!

Are you unhappy about how difficult it is to get nations with different views to agree and possibly send soldiers into conflict? Yes, this is difficult.

Is your hatred based on this difficulty? Would you rather want that no such discussion or attempt at agreement be made?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Are you unhappy about how difficult it is to get nations with different views to agree and possibly send soldiers into conflict? Yes, this is difficult.

Is your hatred based on this difficulty? Would you rather want that no such discussion or attempt at agreement be made?

Did I use the word "hatred"? Are you leaping to strawmen already? Is criticism of taking too much time automatically an endorsement of rushing in immediately?

Are you auditioning for the role of Claus? Sheesh.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Did I use the word "hatred"? Are you leaping to strawmen already? Is criticism of taking too much time automatically an endorsement of rushing in immediately?

Are you auditioning for the role of Claus? Sheesh.

Sorry. I started this thread asking why the right-wingers hated the UN and asking them to post their reasons. If you are not a "hater", I appologize for assuming you were.

 

[mamapajamas]

I agree. There are a lot problems around the world which need to be solved. Do you think not having a forum where such problems can discussed would be better?

It would be nice if the UN WAS a forum to discuss such problems. But the fox is guarding the henhouse there. What it IS is an overly respected microphone for those who abuse human rights.

 

[steverino]

Sorry. I started this thread asking why the right-wingers hated the UN and asking them to post their reasons.

I am a left-winger with certain social causes like gay stuff and abortion and the medling of the Christian kookery, but I'll take a stab at my right-wing opinion on why I hate the UN.

First, I hate that it is in my country. Put it in Iceland. The 200 or so other members already view the US as the world's bully, so the fact that we have the keys to the car reinforces this perception that we are the big bad Goliath and Vanuuatu and Sao Tome and Principe and Paraguay and the rest are the benevolent David's.

Second is that it makes me sick that the UN has no teeth and the US does and the rest of the world blames us for biting them. But if we don't do the heavy lifting, who will?

Third, then I have to go to work, is that the UN profers the basic concept that if we can simply talk and negotiate with the likes of North Korea, Hamas, and the prez of Iran, then we can resolve conflict peacefully. So we have this visual in our minds of big cushy chairs with headphones and everyone is being rational and listening to each other's differences and working their issues out. But I believe conflict is not solvable in this way with the Kim Jung Il's of the world who just exploit the UN and will in no way be appeased by its attempt at problem solving.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I am not some strawman "right winger" DD, but I will answer some of your questions.

Thanks, Darth Rotor. I have to say that you certainly seem to have a relevant background.

I was once far more enamored of the UN and the international system than I am now. The cock ups caused by the UN dual-key RoE, a system that rendered UNPROFOR rather powerless in Bosnia, began the end of my respect for the UN collective security capability.

I shouldn't make an interruption at this point, but being Danish I will. Did you know that the first time the UN forces in the Balkans (and generally) used massive firepower as a response to attacks on its forces, it was a Danish force which did the deed?

The Somalia mess is where some point the finger, but I don't. There were enough errors purely within the US side that I feel the complaints about General Bir (the Turkish 3 star running the UN force) and UN Ops were scapegoats for President Clinton cutting his forces by a third and expecting the same level of mission tempo and success. He wanted something for nothing, which is the same thing the UN bureaucrats want: something for nothing. That is the core bone of contention.

The political theme behind the UN's loss of face in the US began with the post Cold War peace dividend meme and expectation among the American polity. Some more broad minded people, who'd been around the world (like me) thought the "peace divident" a farce, but it played in Peoria, and among liberals who wanted to see reductions in defense spending.

What started the ball rolling was bringing Americans home (we cut 5 divisions out of the Army, cut 3 CVBG's from the Navy, reduced USAF TAC wings to 20) with the intent of reducing our role -- and cost -- of being the world's policeman. The activism of Boutros Boutros Ghali, aided and abetted by both Bush The Elder and Clinton, was a reversal of that expectation, as was the increased op tempo in support of UN and other multinational peace enforcement, and "nation building." Some morons in Europe, and for that matter in Canada, called the reaction to this UN activism "isolationism." Hah, fools don't know the meaning of the word. The US still had bases and forward presence all over the world.

What changed was scale, a matter of degree, not overall posture.

Just making a temporary stop here. At this point I have yet to understand the hatred. You are saying that many units of the US forces were decomissioned after the cold War was over. And? This is good isn't it?

You then make a reference to "activism" by Boutros Boutros Ghali. Sorry, I don't follow?

The US has been constructively engaged since 1945 on most of the planet, and that did not change even though the UN is now in ill odor. What has changed is the political ease of expending US blood and treasure to solve other people's problems. It can still be done, but at a political cost. It took Clinton three years to get the US into Bosnia, in 1995. We just recently (2006) pulled the last of our troops out of Tuzla. That's 11 years of solving someone else's problem. Check out 1991 to 2003, the number of times a US Marine Amphibious groups deployed to Africa and put people ashore, for NEO, humanitarian assistance, or "presence" during civil strife. You'll run out of fingers, and if you include South Asia and Southest Asia, toes.

I must dense. I still don't understand the problem. The US volunteered troops for various UN operations, as other countries did and do. And?

The UN per se isn't the problem.

The internal processes, corruption, duplicity, and outright fraudulent premise of burden sharing are what American Congressional leadership (who control the money) got fed up with while the US was undergoing a significant budgetary belt tightening in the mid 1990's. I will repeat that for emphasis: with US internal deficit reduction being undertaken, the UN was expected to show a similar belt tightening. What Boutros and the bureaucratic club (Kofi is another sucn) wanted to do was expand UN roles and missions on the American dime.

Why on Earth should a period of economic problems in the US dictate what the UN should do? I mean, yes each member of the UN pays in accordance to its ability, which means the US pays the most of any member, but so what? If the UN wanted to expand its operations it would need to look at its finances. And if the finances weren't there, it would need to shelve these ideas.

No surprise there, really, no bureaucracy likes to have funds cut. What cost the UN a lot of American support was the whinging maggots of all the countries who did not want to increase their share (everyone but the US) an expected response, but who wanted a larger role for the UN. Failure to undertake internal UN reform cost more US support.

Are you saying that the UN asked for additional funds and only the US offered to do so? Sorry, I still don't understand.

Each time I see the lie about the US not paying its dues, I note that 25% of the budget is paid for by the US, the share arrangement has not been revisited despite significant changes in global trade balances, and the peacekeeping share (the old 30+ per cent rather than 25% per the standard deduction) without a quid pro quo for billions spent in support of the UN's collective security aims present a balance sheet that does not withstand scrutiny. This fiscal sleight of hand is what got the US in an uproar. This will continue until it is resolved to Congress' satisfaction.

Ahh...I think I finally see the problem. You feel the US is paying too large a part of the UN budget, right?

The American public has spoken to their representatives: no free ride to internationalist elitists. Put your money where you mouth is, challenges the man on the street, and the UN elites answer up with a hand out for more money. So, you get remarks like this.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...7/stun0305.htm

Note: that speech was Pre Iraq war, and I think Pre 9-11. The sentiment remains, however.

It has been exacerbated by

1. The lack of support for Iraq from key members of the security council
2. The exposure of the UN Oil for Food fraud uncovered as Iraq fell.

This is what I don't understand. The US asked the UN for a Security Council mandate for invading Iraq. No such mandate could be achieved as the other permanent members of the SC didn't feel there was sufficient evidence to show that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This view has subsequently been shown to be entirely true. How can this be held against those who felt this way and against the UN in particular?

Regarding the Oil for Food corruption....why would this set off Americans?

Point 1 was a textbook case of how the UNSC really works, and I don't blame the French and Russians for taking the positions they did. The conflicting agendas of various nations typically renders the UNSC impotent to act, regardless of how strongly worded, "serious consequences" of UNSCR's are. I hold the Bush Administration accountable for not successfully generating support at the UNSC. That was their responsibility. Support there is not something one can take for granted.

Support was not justified, then or now.

Point 2 reinforces Congressman Paul's sentiments, and should be an immense embarassment to anyone associated with the UN. The UN bureaucrats to date have displayed no sense of shame, so the image of a gaggle of freeloaders continues before the US voting public. That image is fodder for whatever political wag wants to play that card for purely internal political moves.

Deal with this simple premise: money talks, and BS walks.

So the right wingers, and perhaps even the American public in general, hate the UN because of the instances of corruption? Surely you jest?

At such time as that matter of burden sharing is resolved, and credit for peacekeeping support and UN operational support is acceptably disposed of, the UN cannot restore its image among the bulk of Americans as an organization worthy of full support. When Syria gets on the Human Rights council, or Iran, the credibility of the UN once again falls due to the cynical hypocrisy displayed in the maneuvering for influence on UN councils. Americans see that, and use such data points to reinforce their bias agianst the UN's legitimacy. Some do.

You don't think other populations around the world felt that putting Syria or Iran on these councils was a clear stept back for human rights? Of course they did. But this didn't mean they felt hatred for the UN. It simply meant that the organization was not as perfect as could be hoped for.

Which is a damned shame, in my view. I think the UN is performing well beneath its potential due to participants not seeing past their own noses, which the US is as guilty of as any other.

Agreed.

The UN, as a collaborative body, serves as a superb agency for addressing dozens of transnational problems that collective efforts can mitigate or resolve. (Medical in particular.) The self inflicted wound by the UN bureaucratic management, defying its largest donor, could be remedied, but the political will in dozens of capitals is absent. No one wants to pay any more. Who will bell the cat, eh?

So, again, it is the US share of the payment which is the main point of contention?

The Security Council has the limitations any coalition exhibits thanks to the conflicting aims of its members. As a collective security body, it is extremely limited in effectiveness by structure, due to

1. competing agendas
2. the organ's reliance on contributions for effective collective security actions.

The UN is not sovereign. It has no ability to draft, tax, or deploy force to back up its pronouncements. For collective security, it relies on the kindness of (at times) strangers working together. After two generations of footing the bill for global security, US voters said "no mas." The irony of the immense costs incurred for the Iraq war, validated by the same voters in 2004, is not lost on me, but it makes political sense: "We'll spend freely of our blood and treasure for our own aims, your aims (whoever the mythical "You" is that is not America) You Need To Pay For."

Glad you feel the irony as well.

Just to sum up, in your opinion the bad feeling toward the UN in the US is mainly due to the feeling that the US is footing the bill in excess of what they should be. Right?

The League of Nations, version 2, held in its founding the same risks that League of Nations, version 1, held. That it has held together, and been modestly effective, should be a sign of success and hope for the future. I see the UN being more effective when the decades long debate on burden sharing gets resolved . . . which may never happen.

ETA: Claus, mark you calendar, we agree on this problem.

While I find UN peacekeeping missions hit and miss (Cyprus is another festering sore) they sometimes help. Security council, for all of its shortcomings, is better than NOT having one.

DR

I too think the UN has a lot of shortcomings. But I agree with your last statement. Thanks.

 

[The Painter]

I think the Danish people have been hanging around the coffeeshops a little too much, if you know what I mean. The UN is a useless organization. It is nothing more than a bureaucratic tool.

 

[peptoabysmal]

This is what I don't understand. The US asked the UN for a Security Council mandate for invading Iraq. No such mandate could be achieved as the other permanent members of the SC didn't feel there was sufficient evidence to show that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This view has subsequently been shown to be entirely true. How can this be held against those who felt this way and against the UN in particular?

Regarding the Oil for Food corruption....why would this set off Americans?

I know this was in respnse to DR.

My rude interruption:

I think the two are related. I don't think anyone knew for certain just what Iraq had going on, since it was such a closed society. I can see a justification for skepticism. The part that bothers me is the ones who refused to support the Iraq mission and were also on "the take" from Saddam.

The other part that bothers me about the UN is it's attempts to install a world government with court system (ICC) and world taxes (Kyoto).

 

[Geckko]

We would, and we did.

The problem is that it's not working the way we'd like.

So, do we kill it, or fix it?

My personal opinion is that it needs dramatic surgery, to focus resources on the areas wher eit can and does make a difference (most those areas outlined by CF Larsen).

The first step would be changing this from a quasi legislative body to a purely admistrative one that is tasked with various objective with regard to world health, protection of refugees etc.

The Assembly, the Security Council and all the other various "policy making" apparatus is at best a complete waste of resources, at worst a forum for all manner of rogue individuals and states to obtain an undue influence on events.

But that is only my opinion.

 

[Earthborn]

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 don't see why biases against the US will cause the US to extradite more of its war criminals to the International Criminal Court. The ICC is not meant for the misdeeds of individual troops. It is meant for the leaders behind crimes so great, a country considers itself incapable of giving them a fair trial.

 

[CFLarsen]

You mentioned nine different UN programs. This is evidence of past success of one of them.

I did say "start with", Mycroft.

UN Peacekeeping missions: Cyprus.

Security Council: Almost 2000 resolutions, e.g. International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994

UN Human Rights Council: Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography

The High Commissioner for Refugees: Resettling 13,000 Burundians

The World Food Programme: In 2005, WFP emergency operations provided food aid for 73 million people caught up in the ever-widening net of humanitarian disasters.

The UN Development Programme: Removal of land mines.

UNESCO: Promoting strategies for education, sciences, culture, communication & information.

WHO: Coordinating the global response to human cases of H5N1 avian influenza and monitoring the corresponding threat of an influenza pandemic.

Do you acknowledge that these programmes have shown their worth?

It is certainly a way to find the proof. Besides, it mirrors how Darat has presented evidence in the past.

Does that mean you will accept google searches as evidence in the future? Yes or no.

Is that your argument? That the UN is bad but it can reform?

No, that no organization is without flaws, but can reform.

Because he only compared the UN to the Catholic Church. He didn't try to claim that the Church's past corruption in relation to present corruption is in any way relevent to the corruption of the UN. You did, so I aksed you the question.

Care to answer it?

Rubbish. Comparing something means that you want to point to a relation. If no relation was intented, why make the comparison?

Rubbish, Mycroft. Ask Skeptic the same question you asked me.

 

[Earthborn]

The UN reminds me of the Federation in "Star Trek". They talk, talk, talk, but have a horror of "interfering".

That's exactly what it is.

You're telling me that all the nations of the world, acting together, can't stop the genocide in Darfur?

Of course they could, but that would mean interfering with another country's internal affairs.

Criticism of the UN always comes in two parts, usually from the same person, that contradict eachother:
1: "We shouldn't give the UN too much power over countries, because that would violate sovereignty and lead to a world government."
2: "Why doesn't the UN do anything about the horrors in country X?"

Every country in the world knows that as soon as they all act together and stop the horrors in one country, they give the power to every other country to act together and interfere in their own to stop the perceived horrors in theirs. That's why the UN often appears so ineffective; everybody wants to interfere with everybody else, but no one wants to be interfered with.

 

[Chaos]

Work to fix it. Be patient. Expect it to be difficult. Don't take the easy way out, throw up hands and give up. That's a loser's approach.

UN isn't going to be perfect, but I think it can achieve a "good enough" standard.

DR

Best idea I´ve seen so far in this thread.

The constant "blah blah evil blah blah hate blah blah kill blah blah" coming from a certain direction isn´t going to help. In fact, that very same attitude is a big part of the problem.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor
Work to fix it. Be patient. Expect it to be difficult. Don't take the easy way out, throw up hands and give up. That's a loser's approach.

UN isn't going to be perfect, but I think it can achieve a "good enough" standard.

Best idea I´ve seen so far in this thread.

The constant "blah blah evil blah blah hate blah blah kill blah blah" coming from a certain direction isn´t going to help. In fact, that very same attitude is a big part of the problem.

It is an excellent post. It is hopeful as well as realistic.

However, I'd like to focus on the realism for a moment:

Like any other government, a world government will never be perfect. It may even have it's era of pure evil. But, unlike ages of the past it's obviously necessary today.

And it will take a long, long, long time to come to maturity.