Has any UN resolution ever....

[Buffy]

Can you name one???

I did! Korea and Kosovo, just to name two. I also argue that if Adlai Stevenson had not had the opportunity to embarrass the Soviets in front of the world with those famous words, "Don't wait for the translation, Mr. ambassador. Yes or no!" a good chunk of the US would have been nuked in 1963. Now I can't "prove" that, and I'm sure some would consider any example I came up with to all be arguably complete failures. However, it is pretty clear to me at least that in the areas where UN mandates *do* emerge, it keeps powers more at bay that could be involved: in Korea, given the tenor of the times, if the Soviets did not have an incentive to at least pretend that they went along with the the UN mandate, they would have done a lot more than just secretly put a few pilots in Migs. You could try to point to the fact that they contributed secretly to the North Koreans at *all* as proof that it was a complete failure, but that would seem to be a pretty extreme view. Imagine if a joint force of Chinese and Russians had stormed across the Yalu River, or if they had simply decided to help their commrade brothers by nuking Seoul. Nope, that never could have happened...

"Worthless" is not the question. The question is: "Is the UN worth the cost?". The cost in this case is not just the egregious amount of cash, but also the incredible obstruction of the bureaucracy.

So you're saying if we didn't have to pay as much you'd be okay with it? That's reasonable. I agree we pay too much on paper, but remember we haven't been paying our bills (Ted Turner paid a big chunk out of his own pocket if you'll remember), and we've basically removed ourselves from virtually any military participation when we used to be a major contributor.

 

I happen to agree it would probably be a good idea to reformulate much of the way the UN works, but the basic US approach over the last several years has been to simply take our ball and go home, and our new representative is on record as advocating a complete withdrawl from the body. That's not reforming it, but rather ensuring its destruction. This may be unwise in what appears to be an increasingly unstable world.

The UN is an anachronism that should be replaced by an organization that supports democracy. The UN does not.

An organization devoted exclusively to democracy will not gain the membership of all of the countries that do not support democracy. The true purpose of the UN is to force at least *some* interaction between countries that are otherwise at odds with each other economically, politically or (increasingly unfortunately) religiously. Its not intended to be a "friends of US policy" club, and as things stand today, that might turn out to be a pretty lonely organization! Heck, the only members might turn out to be Egypt, the Saudi's and Pakistan! That would really promote democracy! :eek2:

 

"Jaw Jaw is better than War War" -- Winston Churchill

 

Beware-of-the-law-of-unintended-consequences,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

I did! Korea and Kosovo, just to name two.

I assume you mean Korea in 1950. Did the UN enforce that agreement? It is US troops that are in Korea. And the current 6 party talks have almost nothing to do with the UN. Kosovo was not sponsored by the UN. Clinton intervened in Bosnia without UN approval at all.

..Imagine if a joint force of Chinese and Russians had stormed across the Yalu River, or if they had simply decided to help their commrade brothers by nuking Seoul. Nope, that never could have happened...

...but the storm of Chinese and Russions further south, beginning about 10 years later in Viet Nam certainly does not suggest that the UN provided any pretense of conciliation.

So you're saying if we didn't have to pay as much you'd be okay with it?

No, I am saying that it costs more that it is worth. And most of the cost is the burden of moving the bureaucracy. Specifically, if the UN dues paid by the US were zero, the UN would still be a far too expensive proposition because it enables tyrants and totalitarians to obstruct democracies.

I happen to agree it would probably be a good idea to reformulate much of the way the UN works, but the basic US approach over the last several years has been to simply take our ball and go home...

EVERYONE takes their respective balls and goes home. We just castigate the US for it, even thought it is the rule, not the exception. Did France ask for security council approval before they went into Algiers or the Ivory coast? No one gets UN approval, unless they want to stop the US from doing something. Or to condemn Israel. The most common purpose of the security council is not to gain consensus, it is to stop the US.

An organization devoted exclusively to democracy will not gain the membership of all of the countries that do not support democracy.

How in the world will countries that do not honor democracy at home honor it in the UN? Answer: they don't! The UN is fundamentally a democratic institution. They make decisions about activities and budgets based on votes. It is senseless to give totalitarians a vote in a democratic body. If you give them a vote, it lets them destroy it! And to date, they have been reasonably successful.

The true purpose of the UN is to force at least *some* interaction between countries that are otherwise at odds with each other economically, politically or (increasingly unfortunately) religiously.

Is this why the UN is so active in the current world hotspots? Are they in the lead in North Korea? Are they in the lead in Iran? Are they in the lead in Darfur? None of the above.

Its not intended to be a "friends of US policy" club, and as things stand today, that might turn out to be a pretty lonely organization!

Democratic members do not have to be friends of the US, although they probably would be. Most democracies are, in spite of your suggestion.

[Buffy]

I assume you mean Korea in 1950. Did the UN enforce that agreement? It is US troops that are in Korea. And the current 6 party talks have almost nothing to do with the UN.

Actually Korea and Kosovo most definitely were UN mandates. Did they lead it? No, actually the UN doesn't do that, they provide a mechanism for moral superiority. That is what keeps the conflicts from keeping conflicts from escalating because one side is able to say that the other is just as selfish as they are. This is exactly the process that caused a stupid assassination by a nut in Austria to escalate into World War I. We ignore history at our own peril.

 

Yes its misused, but all of your arguments here are of the form "I reject that example because they didn't solve a related problem" or "they didn't solve it without US help". It seems like the argument the UN is "too expensive for what it is worth" is based entirely upon the fact that it doesn't solve all of the worlds ills. It would be really great if it did, but is that really realistic? If it helps even a little bit, isn't it worth a little bit to avoid some really serious consequences? I'd submit that some of the scenarios I've described are not believeable to some--when talking about "worth" and "possibilities" its always easy to dismiss arguments because they are not provable--but dismissal of possible outcomes can come at a very expensive price as we've seen in Iraq. Do you think its worth the risk to not diplomatically engage those who disagree with us?

Specifically, if the UN dues paid by the US were zero, the UN would still be a far too expensive proposition because it enables tyrants and totalitarians to obstruct democracies.

Really? How does it actually "enable" them? I suppose there is an argument in the sense of "co-dependent enablement", but leaving them alone without the UN as an institution to even talk about it is just as enabling. "Not enabling" a ruthless dictator then does indeed require invading the country in question and doing nation building in its place. Are you arguing that we should invade all dictatorships or we should accuse ourselves of "enabling?" Conversely, if we have close relationships with countries that are the most totalitarian in the world like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, how do we maintain those relationships and maintain a strict adherence to democratic beliefs and not look hypocritical? Or do we simply not care what anyone else thinks?

How in the world will countries that do not honor democracy at home honor it in the UN? Answer: they don't! The UN is fundamentally a democratic institution. They make decisions about activities and budgets based on votes. It is senseless to give totalitarians a vote in a democratic body. If you give them a vote, it lets them destroy it!

Only if they are in control of the majority, except on the security council where there's that silly veto thing. I do appreciate this argument, but you should look where it leads: the Chinese and the Russians (sorta) are totalitarians, and they can veto and they destroy any movement toward democracy world-wide, so we could abolish the veto, which would be bad for the US since everyone is against the US, so the only alternative is to not participate in the UN, which would...destroy it!

 

Its really okay to sit back and complain about the UN not being perfect, its just a good idea to talk about what the alternatives are if you're going to destroy an imperfect institution (you have of course continued to avoid the word "worthless" so you must think there's some thing there, right?) and have proposals on how we go about avoiding the next world war or getting nuked. Once you do walk through those alternatives, it might seem not so certain that abolishing the UN is such a good idea...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Qfwfq]

This is exactly the process that caused a stupid assassination by a nut in Austria to escalate into World War I.

Uhm, it was a stupid nut in Sarajevo. The Balkans were part of the Austro-Hungarian empire and that stupid nut wanted independence. It would be quite right to say that so much tension had been accumulating in Europe that all it took was that guy to spark it off. People around here with any international knowledge had been just waiting, knowing that something would set the whole thing off.

 

Guys'n'Gals, this is starting to look like a pointless ping pong match... :eek2:

[Buffy]

Uhm, it was a stupid nut in Sarajevo. The Balkans were part of the Austro-Hungarian empire and that stupid nut wanted independence.

I know that! I mistyped! Sorry! (Some think he was an anarchist though! :) )

Guys'n'Gals, this is starting to look like a pointless ping pong match... :eek2:

I'll shut up now!

 

<MMmmmphh>,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

Actually Korea and Kosovo most definitely were UN mandates. Did they lead it? No, actually the UN doesn't do that...

True. They don't do anything. What good was it for the UN to come in after the fact and get a mandate around Kosovo? The initial interventions were without UN approval. Funny how that does not get a lot of air time.

It seems like the argument the UN is "too expensive for what it is worth" is based entirely upon the fact that it doesn't solve all of the worlds ills.

I believe what I was saying is that is doesn't solve any.

... How does it {the UN} actually "enable" them {totalitarians}?

By giving them a platform to obfuscate and stonewall. Do you really think we are going to get progress in human rights while the committee is chaired by Sudan???

Are you arguing that we should invade all dictatorships or we should accuse ourselves of "enabling?"

Take another sip of coffee.

...if we have close relationships with countries that are the most totalitarian in the world like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, how do we maintain those relationships and maintain a strict adherence to democratic beliefs and not look hypocritical?

By applying pressure for change. Like Condi Rice standing in Cairo advocating democracy. Or the Bush administration putting pressure on Musharrif (sp?) to reform his military rule. Pressure from friends is far more persuasive than votes from thugs.

...(you have of course continued to avoid the word "worthless" so you must think there's some thing there, right?)...

Sorry for my lack of clarity. The UN is far LESS than worthless. I am saying it has NEGATIVE value in terms of delivering on goals of stability, humanitarian assistance or advancing democracy. "Worthless" would be a significant improvement.

[Qfwfq]

Bio, the UN has done a few good things when not prevented, even by some of its own members. It did a lot of good in the days of good ol' Perez.

 

I might also remind Buffy that anarchists are also fond of independence. :lol: His point was "Hapsburg go home!".

 

Better international politics could have prevented WWI and WWII. An effort in this sense, the Coal Treaty, is what started the EU process.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Tormod:

Does any law have any effect unless it is supported and enforced?

Nice. Any law we live by that is supported by truth can only have a good effect on human society because, by definition, it would recognize and correctly deal with an aspect of human identity. The problem rests in the truth value of the understanding behind the law.

At one time 'political science' worked to understand the human identity. Today, political science (as seen in our 'leaders') is a lost art and truth takes a back seat to public opinion.

Insanity is loose and on the rampage because science has abdicated morality.