Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Is the U.N. Relevant?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: [QB] Just to toss an metaphorical grenade into the discussion, I'd like to link to this article at CNN.com: [URL=http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/07/16/china.un.reut/]UN: World Can't Afford a Rich China[/URL]. The idea of a world community is possible, but to be honest, I don't think it's realistic until more nations are on something that comes close to equal footing economically. But as for the UN... well, may I point out the Cuban Missile Crisis from some 40 years ago? Granted, that was mainly resolved privately between the US and the Soviets, but it still provided an international forum for discussion -- which, I'd wager, at least offered an opportunity to talk first before launching the nukes. That alone would make the organization worthwhile in my book. As for today... well, I know I commented on this earlier, but I might as well offer more ideas. Given the UNSC's rubber-stamp action to legitimize the "coalition" occupation of Iraq as an official occupation (using that term) only made the Council look weaker, and makes it nothing more than an approval arm of the US/UK clique. Now, I think that in some ways, there's a very big misconception about the United Nations. Or perhaps a confused sense of purpose that makes it ineffectual. Simply put, the United Nations has no capability of enforcing its decisions. At all. The organization of the UN is based in part on the "discussion forum" ideas from the old League of Nations, but I believe that the current UN has the same fatal flaws that the League did -- that it can't enforce its resolutions on its own. The sole reason that the League crashed and burned while the UN has plodded along is because nations are more willing to use military force in this day and age, having learned the lessons of the appeasement policy. The UN is an excellent body for discussion and cooperation, but this takes place primarily in the realm of social issues, and to a lesser extent in economics. There, the various members can discuss the plan of action, but it's all still completely voluntary -- and the members are more willing to cooperate. (Bush and the Kyoto Treaty being an exception, but you get my drift, I hope...) In the realm of "power politics," on the other hand, there's frequently much less cooperation, much higher stakes, and greater likelihood of nations choosing to go their own way. Consider that the UN's greatest successes have developed when just about the entire body stood united. The Korean War (yes, I know the USSR was boycotting then, but the point is valid), Gulf War I (prior to its weak conclusion). But when you've got true factions involved with a more equal balance of power inside the UN, there's a much greater likelihood of one side going its own way. Why doesn't Delaware or Maryland suddenly just decide to start trading with Canada on their own because they want more timber at a lower tariff rate than Congress legislated? Because the Federal government would enforce the laws, specifically the part of the Constitution which says that individual states may not form separate relationships with foreign governments. It's enforced. Until the UN can actually enforce its rulings -- and that will never be able to happen in the current organization of the body -- then it won't be able to prevent these kinds of disagreements. And the UN will be caught in between. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3