David:
Much discussion has been ongoing during the past 2 weeks regarding the US abstention from the Israeli settlement resolution vote at the United Nations. Without delving too deep into that specific vote, has the UN become obsolete; a remnant of World War II, or does it still serve some purpose?
Doug:
As a person who values world peace, the United Nations provides another place where diplomatic conversations can happen. Diplomatic conversations are good, and the U.N. is one place where we can have those often difficult conversations. So, no it has not outlived its usefulness and yes, it still serves a purpose.
David:
The United Nations was established during WWII to replace the largely ineffective League of Nations. The League was established after WWI specifically to provide a forum to prevent such a catastrophe from ever happening again. The idea for a coalition of nations to solve differences had been around for decades before then, but the first world war created an impetus for making it a reality. But the limitations within the structure limited its effectiveness to the extent that only a few decades later, an even larger and more devastating world war broke out.
The charter for the UN is much more extensive than the League's guidelines. From it's website, The UN overview of it's mission:
Much discussion has been ongoing during the past 2 weeks regarding the US abstention from the Israeli settlement resolution vote at the United Nations. Without delving too deep into that specific vote, has the UN become obsolete; a remnant of World War II, or does it still serve some purpose?
As a person who values world peace, the United Nations provides another place where diplomatic conversations can happen. Diplomatic conversations are good, and the U.N. is one place where we can have those often difficult conversations. So, no it has not outlived its usefulness and yes, it still serves a purpose.
David:
The United Nations was established during WWII to replace the largely ineffective League of Nations. The League was established after WWI specifically to provide a forum to prevent such a catastrophe from ever happening again. The idea for a coalition of nations to solve differences had been around for decades before then, but the first world war created an impetus for making it a reality. But the limitations within the structure limited its effectiveness to the extent that only a few decades later, an even larger and more devastating world war broke out.
The charter for the UN is much more extensive than the League's guidelines. From it's website, The UN overview of it's mission:
Due to the powers vested in its Charter and its unique international character, the United Nations can take action on the issues confronting humanity in the 21st century, such as peace and security, climate change, sustainable development, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, humanitarian and health emergencies, gender equality, governance, food production, and more.
The UN also provides a forum for its members to express their views in the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, and other bodies and committees. By enabling dialogue between its members, and by hosting negotiations, the Organization has become a mechanism for governments to find areas of agreement and solve problems together.
But, has the UN really prevented any wars, or served the world in the way it was proposed? Has it outlived it's usefulness? Has it become too bloated with bureaucracy to function? Does it need to be replaced and remodeled, or should it simply be dissolved?
Doug:
I don't think we have had any World Wars since WWII, so I guess it has prevented all world wars since its creation. Why would anyone suggest that it should be dissolved?
David:
We have not had a world war, but that isn't the same as preventing wars. The world has continually been at war since the creation of the UN.
If an organization spends a tremendous amount of money, without accomplishing it's stated goals, then something needs to change. For example, one of the most important bodies within the UN is the Human Rights Panel. Currently, Rwanda, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia are all members, and Saudi Arabia was vying to lead the panel despite it having one of the lowest rankings for human rights among the UN's members. That sounds a lot like 4 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. And that seems to be how many of the UN's agencies are set up; The worst offender from the year before becomes that agency's head the next year, because it's their turn.
Doug:
I don't think we have had any World Wars since WWII, so I guess it has prevented all world wars since its creation. Why would anyone suggest that it should be dissolved?
David:
We have not had a world war, but that isn't the same as preventing wars. The world has continually been at war since the creation of the UN.
If an organization spends a tremendous amount of money, without accomplishing it's stated goals, then something needs to change. For example, one of the most important bodies within the UN is the Human Rights Panel. Currently, Rwanda, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia are all members, and Saudi Arabia was vying to lead the panel despite it having one of the lowest rankings for human rights among the UN's members. That sounds a lot like 4 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. And that seems to be how many of the UN's agencies are set up; The worst offender from the year before becomes that agency's head the next year, because it's their turn.
Doug:
Many people (including me) would like for all countries to have excellent Human Rights scores. But this is a big project that will take many centuries, and will be a constant struggle. Why do I think it will take centuries? Because we need to come to some common agreements on what we all accept as basic human rights. Every country will need to become better, and perhaps change traditions that may have been in place for centuries. For example, even many Americans agree with the U.N. regarding the death penalty: it has no place in the 21st century. No government should be able to kill its citizens. But for that to change, it will take time.
David:
You do realize, of course, that the majority of countries in the UN routinely kill and imprison their citizens without trials. Placing these countries in charge of the Human Rights Commission is a ridiculous parody of striving for basic human rights.
Doug:
The goals of the U.N. can be a tough sell back at home, for any country. Why would any country want to give up any amount of sovereignty? Because, of course, we can make the world a better, peaceful world for all people.
One would think that losing money would be a driving influence in countries that have bad Human Rights records, and have some sort of sanction from the U.N. But for many countries, the citizens may not be aware of what they are losing, or their standard of living is so bad that the sanctions don't seem to make much of a difference anyway. But, if citizens of a country feel a substantial impact on their lives, then they may clamor for change.
David:
And end up dead, or worse. The UN General Assembly has become a political forum for petty dictators to attempt to improve their own lot. World peace is not their primary motivation.
Doug:
Can the United Nations operate more fairly, and more efficiently? Perhaps. But we need to take small steps towards where we want to be. Dissolving the single, working organization is not progress.
David:
There are portions of the UN that provide useful services, like the World Health Organization, which collects valuable information on emerging medical disasters, like ebola. But the majority of the organization is mired in feckless bureaucracy. A quick Google search of "UN corruption guilt" turned up just shy of seven million articles.
I believe it was you, in our last blog, who predicted that within the next year we'd see WWIII. I believe you, along with many liberal pundits voiced the opinion that this would occur not because President Trump would start a war, but that he would inadvertently cause Russia or China to start a war. This is certainly a bold prediction if the UN is as effective as you say. If a major war could start that easily, the UN is, by default, totally ineffective.
Doug:
I did not predict WWIII within a year. And I never said anything about Russia or China. So, no I did not make any "bold predictions." I also said that the United Nations is useful. But I do believe that Trump could start a major war easily, and that there is nothing the UN could do to stop that. But that does not make the organization "totally ineffective."
David:
"Doug: Nuclear proliferation? World war? Increased harassment of minorities? Increase in pollution? Decreased funding in federal science initiatives? Heightened aggression against predominately Muslim countries? Erosion of the press? Collapse of public education? Incompetence in the Trump administration leading to unexpected consequences? Scary times ahead."
The UN is a good idea, poorly implemented. Corruption and bureaucracy have rendered it as effective as a high school debate. Lots of talk, without much action. Or, in the case of Israel, a great number of anti-semitic players, whose goal is the complete annihilation of Israel and all jews, to pass resolutions at the highest levels of the UN, while Russia is bombing hospitals and schools across Syria. Genocide continues within African countries without comment. And the worst offenders of human rights can head the Human Rights Commission. It will take longer than centuries, brother. It will never happen. If the bullies run the playground, don't expect the bullies to vote themselves out of power any time soon. And if a new world war could be so easily initiated, as you suggest, then the UN's basic premise for existing is null and void.
Doug:
You've just described all governments. But the U.N. is the best organization we currently have. Can it be made better? Yes, it can be made much better.
David:
I think we can agree that if the UN worked as it was promised to work, we'd both support it. Some might say it is better than nothing. I doubt you'd hear that from Israelis, who are under attack within the UN by countries whose goal is jewish genocide. And those countries get a pass on their own actions. Perhaps the threat from the US to withhold some funding might be the impetus for reforms that would actually make it a better organization. As it stands, it has no accountability, except to it's members, with the majority of those being repressive dictatorships. Democracies make up a minority of members, (and China and Russia are both counted as "democracies" in that list).
Doug:
We don't just want an organization that will make Israel happy; we want the entire world to be happy. This will take a long time, and continued pressure.
Many people (including me) would like for all countries to have excellent Human Rights scores. But this is a big project that will take many centuries, and will be a constant struggle. Why do I think it will take centuries? Because we need to come to some common agreements on what we all accept as basic human rights. Every country will need to become better, and perhaps change traditions that may have been in place for centuries. For example, even many Americans agree with the U.N. regarding the death penalty: it has no place in the 21st century. No government should be able to kill its citizens. But for that to change, it will take time.
David:
You do realize, of course, that the majority of countries in the UN routinely kill and imprison their citizens without trials. Placing these countries in charge of the Human Rights Commission is a ridiculous parody of striving for basic human rights.
Doug:
The goals of the U.N. can be a tough sell back at home, for any country. Why would any country want to give up any amount of sovereignty? Because, of course, we can make the world a better, peaceful world for all people.
One would think that losing money would be a driving influence in countries that have bad Human Rights records, and have some sort of sanction from the U.N. But for many countries, the citizens may not be aware of what they are losing, or their standard of living is so bad that the sanctions don't seem to make much of a difference anyway. But, if citizens of a country feel a substantial impact on their lives, then they may clamor for change.
David:
And end up dead, or worse. The UN General Assembly has become a political forum for petty dictators to attempt to improve their own lot. World peace is not their primary motivation.
Doug:
Can the United Nations operate more fairly, and more efficiently? Perhaps. But we need to take small steps towards where we want to be. Dissolving the single, working organization is not progress.
David:
There are portions of the UN that provide useful services, like the World Health Organization, which collects valuable information on emerging medical disasters, like ebola. But the majority of the organization is mired in feckless bureaucracy. A quick Google search of "UN corruption guilt" turned up just shy of seven million articles.
I believe it was you, in our last blog, who predicted that within the next year we'd see WWIII. I believe you, along with many liberal pundits voiced the opinion that this would occur not because President Trump would start a war, but that he would inadvertently cause Russia or China to start a war. This is certainly a bold prediction if the UN is as effective as you say. If a major war could start that easily, the UN is, by default, totally ineffective.
Doug:
I did not predict WWIII within a year. And I never said anything about Russia or China. So, no I did not make any "bold predictions." I also said that the United Nations is useful. But I do believe that Trump could start a major war easily, and that there is nothing the UN could do to stop that. But that does not make the organization "totally ineffective."
David:
"Doug: Nuclear proliferation? World war? Increased harassment of minorities? Increase in pollution? Decreased funding in federal science initiatives? Heightened aggression against predominately Muslim countries? Erosion of the press? Collapse of public education? Incompetence in the Trump administration leading to unexpected consequences? Scary times ahead."
The UN is a good idea, poorly implemented. Corruption and bureaucracy have rendered it as effective as a high school debate. Lots of talk, without much action. Or, in the case of Israel, a great number of anti-semitic players, whose goal is the complete annihilation of Israel and all jews, to pass resolutions at the highest levels of the UN, while Russia is bombing hospitals and schools across Syria. Genocide continues within African countries without comment. And the worst offenders of human rights can head the Human Rights Commission. It will take longer than centuries, brother. It will never happen. If the bullies run the playground, don't expect the bullies to vote themselves out of power any time soon. And if a new world war could be so easily initiated, as you suggest, then the UN's basic premise for existing is null and void.
Doug:
You've just described all governments. But the U.N. is the best organization we currently have. Can it be made better? Yes, it can be made much better.
David:
I think we can agree that if the UN worked as it was promised to work, we'd both support it. Some might say it is better than nothing. I doubt you'd hear that from Israelis, who are under attack within the UN by countries whose goal is jewish genocide. And those countries get a pass on their own actions. Perhaps the threat from the US to withhold some funding might be the impetus for reforms that would actually make it a better organization. As it stands, it has no accountability, except to it's members, with the majority of those being repressive dictatorships. Democracies make up a minority of members, (and China and Russia are both counted as "democracies" in that list).
Doug:
We don't just want an organization that will make Israel happy; we want the entire world to be happy. This will take a long time, and continued pressure.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!