Get the US out of the U.N. -- NOW!

[Nolan Dalla]

The United Nations is a disgrace. It serves no absolutely purpose for anyone except a few third-world crackpots who can shine on the world stage every once in a while when they get to bring up some pet issue. It has no legimate power nor authority. It has no credibility. Yet the U.N. continues to think people take it seriously. I have news for them. They are a joke. Every diplomatic corps considers a UN assignment a dead end job. It's where the losers are assigned, when there is no place else for them to go.

The UN staff people are the most useless and corrupt bunch of do-nothings on earth, second only to the staff of the World Bank and IMF in terms of destroying lives. All of the UN positions are overpaid bureacrats who administer loads of paperwork and special projects, very little of which has any human value. Average salaries at the UN start in the 60K range and go up as high as the Pesident's salary. Then, there are the perks. They don't pay taxes. They don't pay thier parking tickets (those based in NYC anyway). The have diplomatic immunity. Half the time, these leeches are out in the nightclubs in NYC and DC, hardly doing the humanitarian work of the mssion.

If the UN wants to continue, stick it over in Geneva and let them debate amongst themselves. The UN serves no purpose for the USA and it' time to put public pressure on leader to drop out.

Frankly, there should be protests at the UN right now, calling for the disnandment of the orgnization. Of course, New York was protesting against the war earlier, so you will hardly see anything pro-American come out of that city.

Nolan Dalla

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

:clap:
Could not agree more Nolan.

This ordeal produced some big time winners and losers with U.N. taking brunt on losers side.

I'll have to say I watched this event almost non stop on several networks and found myself very impressed with the black general Brooks. What an articulate,credible and class act.

 

[Pujo21]

OH SO TRUE

OH SO TRUE

The United Nations should be based in Gay Paris ! Yes indeed, France, Thr Culprit , but I forgive them because they would do anything to whore themselves. !

It is a shame that the great Nation of Canada has to be indulged by these coksucures.

Viva Le France, I think not. They master grave desecrations !
And who understands the French , they simply don't know what side of the fence they are on because they are too fascinated with the pole at the end !

 

[selkirk]

will probably be the only one on this board and respect all of the different views but I support the UN.

first this is a large topic IMF and World Bank, also knew some people who worked at the UN for a brief time (best way to keep your sanity is to only be there for a short time) so will avoid any of those stories.

there are many problems with the UN and it would take my life to list them all, red tape is nothing anywhere like it is at the UN, sometimes it takes 3 days to set up one 2/3 hour meeting. also hard to defend an organization that has Libya heading a humantarian committee on Africa. to the credit of the US they spoke up against this Canada do so also but only after US objections. Considering th e amount of foreign help Canada gives Africa we should have been a leader on this issue. another topic.

The UN helps keep peace in many parts of the world, they are the main body to oversee free and democratic elections, by sending in observers and helping run the elections.

many issues have been broght up in the UN and though some despots get a platform so do emerging democracies.

issues such as education, health, food supply, are discussed and in some cases progress is made.

By the way in Iraq the UN (through the memeber countries) will give millions of dollars in foreign aid to rebuild Iraq. also will probably over see elections in Iraq which is important.

Blair realizes the important role the UN can play in Iraq, hope Bush does as well.


one last note on a diplomatic level Canada PM handled the situation wrong. he could have elected to bring Canada into the war or out but it was handled wrong. Besides Australia, and Britain, no other country has done more to help the US in this war than Canada. We have lost two soldiers in the fighting, (32 are in fighting with british troops, government will not give exact figures :shrug: )

also our ships are in the gulf stopping ships in the "war against terrorism" and even commanding other ships from other nations. also we will have over 700 more troops in Afganistan, which is still subject to attacks by the Taliban, that place in not secure. In Iraq we will send hundreds of millions in foreign aid.

thanks
selkirk

 

[Turfgrass]

THE NEXT BATTLE

Maintaining the sovereignty of The United States. Before the war began we had people such as Kofi Annan and Nelson Mandela telling us that the United States had no right to act without the approval of the United Nations. I think that now the U.S. has reasserted its right to act internationally as it sees fit based on considerations of national defense and security. Now we have the United Nations trying to reassert itself as the supreme arbiter of what should and should not be done with Iraq. You also have Russia (and soon France) insisting that it?s contracts with Saddam for the control of various Iraqi oil fields are still in full force and effect. Funny ? I seem to remember that contracts become void upon the death of one of the parties thereto, unless there is a valid assignment. I wonder of Vlad can come up with such an assignment.

Anyway ? Now is not the time to step back and allow the United Nations to resume it?s role of final authority on what is good and allowable, and what is not good and now allowed.

The United Nations has been and remains essentially anti-American and anti-freedom in its basic operation and philosophy.

 

[djv]

All I keep hereing is Iraq is best educated of all Arab countries.
Comes from our own state dept mouths. Good there so smart they can take over in about a month. We can go home. Just pump lots of oil over to us to pay for the bill.
The UN not sure about it's place anymore. This last go around caused me to step back and say. What good are they? But then I look at our Nato buddies and ask. What good are they.
To just say the French and Germans lets us down would be incorrect. Forget Russia we dont need them till we start to screw around with Iran. If we ever do.

 

[selkirk]

DJV have read how there will always be a US force in Iraq. Look at all the countries that border Iraq, not a bad place to moniter them all. also US military bases in Turkey and Saudia Arabia may not be secure 10years +. So there will be probably US military bases in Iraq.

The US will be spending billions and billions in Iraq.

thanks
selkirk

 

[DR STRANGELOVE]

will probably be the only one on this board and respect all of the different views but I support the UN.

NOT SO FAST SELKIRK, I stand by you on this matter as well, though there have been moments of failure as well. I wrote my Honours Thesis on teh U.N.
The following are some excerpts from my thesis.




United Nations To be, or not to be? What constitutes success? What factors allow us to judge whether something is a failure or a success? The Maquarie dictionary states that: success is the favourable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavours, or the gaining of wealth, position, or the like. Born from a war time alliance in June 1945 the United Nations has dedicated itself in persuading nations to co-operate economically, socially and politically. (United Nations: questions and answers) Has it been successful? The following quote allows us to understand the general perception of the United Nations. With few exceptions, the voice of the United Nations has been the roar of a toothless tiger. The body born with high hope after World War two, has done good works but has also been expensive and ineffectual. Can it negotiate a peace? In way, will it be pawn of the United States? The Age: Gulf War pge 29 Throughout history greed, violence and unbridled quest for power and dominance have shaken our society. Embarking on as many peacekeeping jobs in the past four years as in the previous forty, the United Nations has retrospectively failed in its primary aim of keeping the peace.( G Evans: New World Order) However the fact it still exists can be classified as a success. Yet, is the United Nations success merely due to the Great Power influence? If so, was this perceived among the United Nations founders? This quote shows the ongoing and long term affect of the United Nations ..and humankind was poised to benefit from the lessons of the past. Perhaps the United Nations was about to fulfil the hopes of its founders. D.Rieff Slaughter House pge 119 Since the Cold War in 1962 between the two superpowers, Russia and America, events such as the Gulf War and those in Bosnia have displayed not only the strengths and weaknesses of the United Nations but have reaffirmed the relationship between the United States and Russia. The United Nations was formed on the 26th of June 1945 where 50 countries signed the charter in San Francisco providing a mechanism by which countries could meet to discuss their differences in order to find solutions. The aims of the United Nations focused on ensuring peace and security in developing friendly relations among nations, as well as promoting human rights and better standards of living. (United Nations: questions and answers)In order to fulfil these obligations the United Nations was broken into six groups. These were the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Trusteeship council, the International court of justice, the Secretariat, and the Economic and Social Council which comprise of various different agencies.(Refer diagram 1.1). As the United Nations is not a governmental dominion, in theory they do not have the right to interfere in a nation s affairs. There is some question to whether it is the United Nations duty to step forward at there own will when there is sign of conflict or merely provide a support by which countries can lean back on if it is necessary. Certainly the founders of the United Nations aimed to provide both a support as well as a system that could act when necessary but only within the sphere of duty .The United Nations charter states that: Nothing contained in the Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of any state United Nations charter doc 07 Founders of the United Nations assumed that the permanent members of the Security Council, the Big Five - United States, USSR, China, France and Britain would act together as chief peacekeepers. However soon after the signing of the Charter, the world situation had changed. By 1946 the world was dominated by two Great Powers, the United States and USSR. Instead of co-operating the two nations faced each other as enemies. D Wellington ( World Peace pge 27 )Thus, for the following fifty years the world was to live in fear of war even more terrible then the Second World War. The United Nations was to play a vital role in these fifty years. However the very situation meant the United Nations could not function the way it s founders had intended. The Cold War between the USA, and the USSR caused the Big Five to quarrel among themselves giving the less significant nations more power and influence. The start of the Cold War affected the United Nations in two ways. Firstly it caused the members of the Military Staff Committee to fail to agree about how to set up a United Nations force for the use of the Security Council. Secondly, the Big Five were unable to work together as the world s peacekeeping organisation. Instead, the USA and USSR used world crises to gain more power and score points off one another. Thus, it can be said that the United Nations has not had the opportunity to succeed.(Ibid) According to a leading historian . Superpower independence has in the past inhibited the UN s ability to intervene .. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the US had their tentacles spread around the globe and frequently used their power of veto to thwart concerted multilateral action. H.R Cowie: United Nations, attempt at internationalism pge 149 In order to determine whether the United Nations has been effective or not it is necessary to look at two crises that have occurred since the end of the Cold War . The Gulf War and the ongoing crisis in Bosnia. These events show the contrasting influence of the UN. Firstly the Gulf War. As stated by Garth Evans, former Australian minister for foreign affairs: But equally there is a particular significance in the successful international effort to reverse Iraq s aggression: the outcome of the Gulf war was a triumphant reaffirmation of the UN s collective security role so clearly envisaged for it by its former founders but so long in limbo In the years 1990-1991, Iraq under leadership of Saddam Hussein, invaded Kuwait. The United Nations was quick to act; authorising sweeping economic sanctions against Iraq as well as militaristic methods to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Air wars were launched after Saddam refused to retreat, and finally in February 1991 a four day ground offensive was completed driving Iraq from Kuwait. The success of the UN in this circumstance brought about new life and hope.(R Thakur, The Australian 25/2/98) The United Nations may emerge from the Gulf crisis like a butterfly bursting from its cocoon to find a new identity and a sense of purpose in the post-Cold War world (R Thakur, The Australian 25/2/98) On the other hand, the crisis in Bosnia has shown the inability of the United Nations and the west to act effectively.( R.Miller Bosnian Triumph pge16-19?) The ongoing crisis in Yugoslavia has been difficult to determine. Unlike the Gulf War, which could be acted upon quickly there, are many other factors that determined the decisions of the west. In this case the decision of the United Nations had severe implications on the nation. In order to clear self-interest the West avoided warfare at all costs. (N Malcolm: Bosnia a Short History pge 232-234)This caused greater problems. Due to their inaction more lives were lost and are still being lost. These crises show both the ability for the UN to act effectively and the ability for the UN to act as a support with little result. The United Nations has been described by its critics as a temple of inefficiency, extravagance and hypocrisy , a theatre of impotence and a bore (H.R Cowie: United Nations pge162) .In order to understand whether this statement can be justified it is necessary to review the weaknesses and shortfalls as well as the strengths and achievements. Firstly the weaknesses. An important if not the most important weakness is the inability of the UN to enforce its decisions without the co-operation of the superpowers. In contrast, the growth of the United Nations from fifty to 166 countries has allowed for a decrease in the superpower role and an increase in the minor powers. In the past century the United Nations has been the centre of dispute. Is there a justifiable role for an international body that has no real authority unless it is supported by a great power? The answer is yes. The United Nations role is to act as a mechanism and a support by which countries can turn to. Not necessarily to stop a war but to work with a common interest to a common goal. Success of the United Nations is the ability for it to remain unified as well as how successfully they contribute to situations in which equal sovereign nations can work co-operatively

 

[DR STRANGELOVE]

United Nations Reform Many of the UN's functions and responsibilities have come under weighty circumstances. For example, the delegation of revenue to it's ramifications and the standard of which ?who? will ?maintain? a seat on the security counsil are two of the main topics. First off, financing the United Nations 15 specialized agencies, the UN itself, and roughly 9,000 staff members (of which 40% are of professional grade) with the ?Regular Budget? is a problem that continues to be a major threat to the continuation of the UN for two reasons: Some of the larger industrial countries, such as the United States and Russia, have been with-holding a portion of their assessed contribution due to their dissatisfaction with certain aspects of UN administration. The concern also exists that since all members must pay in U.S. dollars which are earned strictly through trade, the United States indirectly causes many developing nations to fall behind on payments. Secondly, the struggle just to maintain one of the two year seats on the SC has been a major concern. A yearning for a permanent seat on the SC has been expressed by many more countries. The European Union (EU)stated on April 9, 1996 that it feels strongly that the United States should not collect anything off of the UN because it is not contributing what it is supposed to. Many third world nations, such as Indonesia and Chile, are frightened by the attempts at cutting the UN's budget. Most countries feel Japan deserves a permanent seat on the Security Council. The UN proposed an elimination of 70 worldwide UN information centers on May 13,1996, With the supporting argument that with our current information superhighways these centers are becoming antiquated. Nations such as Indonesia and Chile argue that such cuts are unjust to those who have not been given the ? Technological Gift.? The nation of Japan is going against what would normally be expected of us. We are not following along in the trail left by the United States in the ongoing struggle for the United Nations financial reform. Instead we hold ground in that everyone should pay their assessment. Japan also feels it is imperative for Japan to recieve a permanent seat on the SC, because it is the second largest donor dealing with pecuniary items. Factors that affect Japans present position are the long-standing focus on economic development, the policy of unilateral pacifism, the large assessment due to the UN, and sharp splits in public opinion. The nation of Japan supports with-holding full UN privileges to those nations which refuse to pay their assessment and/or their pending debts in full. Also, the nation of Japan feels thatpermanent seating on the Security Council should be based on assesed contributions as well as former violations of the founding and framework principles by which the Security Council abides

 

[DR STRANGELOVE]

The United Nations: Successes and Failures

The United Nations is an organization that works to maintain international peace and security. A further goal of the UN is to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of people. They also strive to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems. Countries from every part of the world belong to the United Nations. The United Nations has achieved both success and failure in its work. It has been involved in resolving many small conflicts that may have developed into major wars. It has also been instrumental in helping people all over the world to gain freedom and a better way of life. But disagreements within its members and also financial problems limits the major goal of peacekeeping. By understanding what the United Nations was set up to do and looking at how it was designed to do it one can see that despite its noble efforts it has numerous problems.

Even before the end of World War 11 the need for the United Nations was recognized by the President of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, he made the bold statement "This time we shall not make the mistake of waiting until the end of the war to set up the machinery of peace." Together with the leaders of Britain, the Soviet Union and China the basic plans for the United Nations were started. The world was weary after two world wars and all could agree that such a war could never happen again. With that ambition, the United Nations was formed on June 26, 1945 in San Francisco, when 51 nations signed the UN Charter. The UN Charter sets forth the principles of the organization and the rules by which it is run. The United Nations was officially established on October 24, 1945. Its headquarters were and still is in New York City. The United Nations has been set up with two separate divisions. The purpose of the two separate parts is so that both the larger and smaller powers major issues could be addressed. One division is the General Assembly , where each country has a vote. The General Assembly meets annually in September, but they can assemble at any time for emergency debates. It is at the Assembly that nations can voice their opinions on numerous issues. It has been called "the town meeting of the world." Decisions can be made by a majority vote, but on more important issues a two-thirds vote is needed. The other division is the Security Council which is controlled by the major powers. It's primary responsibility is the maintenance of world peace and security. The Council is made up of five permanent members, the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China. Each has veto power over any decision made by the UN. This gives these Super Powers the larger role in the United Nations. The Council also has ten nonpermanent members which are elected to a two year term. The General Assembly and the Security Council are just two branches of the six major branches that were set up by the UN Charter. The other branches are the Secretariat, which helps all the other branches to do their work efficiently. The Economic and Social council has many duties including promoting human rights, and helping people gain a better way of life. The International Court of Justice handles international legal disputes. The Trustee Council is in force to protect the interest of territories that are not self-governing, until they are independent.

The United Nations had an impressive start. Many world issues have been discussed. In 1948 an outstanding Universal Declaration of Human rights was adopted. Valuable humanitarian work was initiated to alleviate poverty, hunger, sickness, and the plight of refugees. International standards were established, such as safety standards for ships and aircraft, health certificates for travellers to some regions, uniform postal rates and the assignment of space and broadcast bands.

The United Nations was closely involved in the efforts to make peace in the conflict between India and Pakistan from 1947-49. The United Nations also showed it's military muscle when soldiers under its flag went into Korea in 1950, and into the Congo (now Zaire) in 1960. Presently the United Nations peace keeping forces are in Central America, Iraq, Cambodia, and Bosnia to name just a few. In the last 54 years the United Nations has made its mark. Along with the United Nations many success have been the obvious failure to live up to its mandate to "maintain international peace and security ." While the United Nations has preformed many valuable services it has in many ways failed to maintain peace and security for many important reasons. The core issue is the UN's unfairness in how the five permanent Security Council states use the UN as a tool. These Superpower states use their veto power to clear themselves in the UN whenever they are seen as aggressors. The reality of trying to accommodate all nations large and small was much harder to do than originally anticipated. The United Nations is a organization that promotes democracy, yet at times it can be very undemocratic. When the United Nations was first established, a concept of a system based on compromise, negotiation and co-operation for maintaining international peace and security under the provisions of the Charter was envisioned. That vision was soon clouded over by the differences of the major powers. These major powers often exert the importance of their problems over the problems of the world. International goals must take precedent over goals of individual countries. Besides the pressures the United Nations feels from the Superpowers there are also other reason to be critical of the United Nations. First, for the most part the United Nations can make decisions but it cannot enforce them. Serious world problems are regularly discussed in great detail, resolutions are passed, and then often ignored or forgotten. And finally ,the efforts of peacekeeping is extremely expensive, and can continue for years. For example Cyprus has had peacekeeping operations for over 35 years. Sadly, most countries despite the United Nations efforts return to fighting. The UN has been involved in peacekeeping efforts in the former Yugoslavia, but still there were terrible atrocities committed against the people of Kosovo, so much so that NATO has been bombing Serbian troops for over three months. The task of bringing complete peace is just too complex and difficult for the United Nations. Nevertheless, it is still a valid organization that does much good. The United Nations has grown from the original 51 members in 1945 to 185 members today. It remains a strong organization, that has been instrumental in economic development, international law, human rights, health, the environment and it has played an important role of peacekeeper. Without the UN there would undoubtably been many more and longer lasting invasions of other states. Also, it may have helped to prevent a third world war. It is also clear that it has at times been manipulated by the Superpowers for their own gain. Ideally there needs to be a redistribution of power to make the UN a much more efficient peacekeeping organization. The United Nations has had successes and failures, but it is needed to negotiate between disputing nations and as a developer of human rights for all.

 

[DR STRANGELOVE]

As far as peace keeping methods go, the reputation of the United Nations is very pitiable. This is not only because they have not been doing their job to it?s fullest extent, but also because the member states on the security council haven?t given the UN the power it needs if it is to be a successful force in peace keeping methods. 2.

The United Nation idea was first brought to head during World War II, when 26 nations of the world pledged to work together as one. The United Nations was officially operational as of the 24th of October 1951, with a minor 51 countries signing the UN charter. A stable base was set-up in New York. 3.

The UN structure is a very well thought-out one. The UN contains over 150 countries, with 5 main heads of state. These 5 countries are America, France, Great Britain, Russia and China. The 5 head countries always make the decision on whether to help a country that is in need or not. The basic structure is that there is a general assembly, which is the head of the UN. Off that there are 5 separately run systems, which are International court of justice, Economic and social council, Security Council, secretariat and the trainee council. All have different, yet major roles in striving to make the UN a success. 4.

The Security Council is the council in charge of the peacekeeping side of the United Nations. The Security Council contained 15 countries in 1995. The countries were Argentina, Botswana, China, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Honduras, Indonesia, Italy, Nigeria, Oman, Russian Federation, Rwanda, UK and the U.S. China, France, UK, U.S and Russia are all permanent heads of the council. There are over 50 countries now listed in the Security Council. 5.

The UN can be so ineffective because they do not have the power they would like to have. The United Nations have no power under the current charter to simply waltz into a countries disputes with out any permission being granted. Both countries must invite the UN in, but the Security Council must also agree with this as well. The countries involved in the Security Council must also provide the necessary manpower quickly. This takes time and hinders the UN?s power. 6.

Somalia ? In 1992, after 23 months of Barre?s rain there was an estimated 300,000 people who died of starvation. A vanguard of UN peacekeeping forces was sent in to restore order. The UN soon organised international agencies so that food from all the member states could be transported directly to Somalia. The UN mission became mired in 1993 as violence broke out. The UN was force to take necessary action and they targeted the powerful clan leader Mohammad Farrah Aidid. They saw him as the biggest threat to peace in Somalia. Despite the UN?s huge efforts peace was not fully restored, but an estimated 300,000 lives were saved. A victory in it?s self. Iran-Iraq War ? In 1980 Iraq invaded Iran and all hell broke loose. The world was furious at this, and the United Nations knew they had to do something, but they did not have the authority. Although most of the fighting was left up to the Americans, the achievement that the UN got out of this war was that it put forward a cease-fire on the war in 1988. Rwanda ? In 1994 the United Nations peace force was already stationed in Rwanda because of a previous conflict. Soon after the UN settled one conflict another started because Rwanda and Burundi?s presidents were killed. This started a wave of ethnic violence and the UN was forced to take force. In July the UN organised a cease-fire. The government blocked the borders and several confrontations broke out resulting in thousands of deaths. In 1996 the UN cleared the borders and the refugee?s started coming back in to their country, not fearing death anymore. This was another victory for the UN peacekeeping force. 7. To help the UN with its responsibilities I think that every country should be involved in the UN Security Council and be made to sign the charter. Not only would this cure the quarrelling problems that some countries have, but also the army will be a lot better and organised, so when the UN is called into help out, not only will they have the man power and resources, but they will have the efficiency to be a true force in the world peace keeping process.

 

[djv]

Selkirk you are correct I forgot. Air Bases.WMD.Oil. Thats what most of this is about. Who needs UN for those three.

 

[AR182]

Nolan,

I couldn't agree with you more. I guess in theory the thought of countries getting together was a good idea.But in reality the un is nothing more than a useless organization.The un gives 2nd rate nations(syria, france, germany) a voice in world events that they wouldn't have if there was no un.The idea that we would let these countries have a voice in our national security is ludicrous.

 

[ferdville]

The concept of the United Nations is a good one. But common political bickering where countries only look out for themselves renders the concept impotent. I do feel that the UN could become somewhat beneficial if it dealt with humanitarian issues only and efforts to improve education, health, etc. Unfortunately, I think that the countries involved would be offended at not having a voice, however irresponsible and insignificant, in all that goes on in the world. We could probably erase our national debt if we could collect all the parking fines and tickets that they slide on!

 

[gardenweasel]

amen,nolan

amen,nolan

the United Nations actions mock the free world



Either Rod Serling or the Klingon High Council is hovering above me.

After reading the news on the Internet, I've determined that either I'm lost in the Twilight Zone or living on another planet.

The headline on CNN.com reads ? and I am not making this up ? "Iraq to chair U.N. disarmament conference."

It gets better.

The co-chair for this May conference in Geneva is Iran. Yup. That's the United Nations in action.

As I understand, the disarmament conference has a rotating chairmanship, but putting Iraq in a leadership role on a disarmament panel is one more example of critical problems with the U.N.

Two weeks ago, the U.N. tapped Libya to chair the Human Rights Council.

Now then, Moammar Gaddafi is the dictator of this country that gave rise to the folks who blew up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. Human rights is not a Libyan government strong point.

So, then, what's next for the U.N.? Maybe they'll tap Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe to lead the council on feeding the hungry.

Or the U.N. might name Matt Hale to chair a committee on racial sensitivity.

On a serious note, though. One has to wonder how the U.N. can be considered a responsible world governing body with such insane choices for leadership.

 

[ferdville]

I would have assumed that any members of Saddam's political circus would now be removed from their positions within the UN. But nothing the UN does would surprise me unless it involved praise for the United States rather than a request for money.