I spent last week in The Hague for a Model United Nations conference. I had a good time and I really appreciated the week away from home. But the conference only reconfirmed what I already thought...The United Nations doesn't accomplish anything. All they do is debate all day and then they can't even enforce what solutions they come up with.
We did exactly what the UN does and it left me terribly convinced that the UN does nothing. First day, we basically went over the rules and then there was lobbying. My resolution wasn't strong enough to push or even merge with someone else, so I just basically helped co-submit other people's resolutions. Second day, opening speeches followed by debate. I had to give an opening speech and I was terrified. I had to speak in front of a commission the size of my entire school (which isn't that big, it's only like 300 people). After like four hours of speeches, we broke for lunch and then came back to start debates. I payed attention, raised my placard a couple of times (but never got called on except once), and just basically observed how things worked. People argued and got mad all about a silly piece of paper. People kept asking how the submitter of the resolution could assure that countries would do what the resolution said. Well, you can't make them do anything. So, basically, countries can pass a resolution and then just ignore it and not do what it says.
The whole process made me really frustrated at times. Resolutions I co-submitted drastically changed between the time I signed my name onto them and the time they were debated. After a while, we started running through the debates so we could get through all the resolutions. We got through ten, but the last four were debated in about an hour each. Towards the end, no one was even paying attention and they weren't paying attention to how they voted. All this just confirmed, re-confirmed, and re-re-confirmed how the United Nations accomplishes nothing. It's a great goal, but it's not practical.
I do now understand, however, why there are always videos of senators falling asleep in Congress.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The other problem with the UN is that they come up with really dull operation names.
And of course, it just gives strong countries another way to oppress weak countries, and powerful countries the ability to put sanctions on weak countries, thus hurting the often innocent populace.
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."
Benjamin Franklin
Actually, that's only really half-true. The UN does plenty of good things, but it was meant to be bureaucratic-- hence the hours of debating you saw. The UN does have its flaws... but that can always be reformed. And the United States isn't helping with that effort, either.
The UN isn't supposed to have any enforcement power. The UN has no standing force, therefore it is up to the individual countries that make up the UN to provide enforcement. The cornerstone of the UN Charter is the concept of state sovereignty, so that's another reason why the UN can't force it's will upon another country.
In other words, the UN is an essentially useless organization that strong nations use an excuse when they decide in their favor and willingly ignore whenever it doesn't.
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."
Benjamin Franklin
There is no such thing as world government as of yet. And think of the alternative which would be to have no world forum whatsoever. It's not a useless organization, and yes; stronger nations can choose to ignore their decisions. But doing so results in political costs, so there are SOME tangible negative consequences, even for strong nations who choose to disobey the UN. But, for the most part, countries do abide by the UN because it creates a long shadow of the future and can lessen the degree if uncertainty in the international community.
"There is no such thing as world government as of yet."
Thank god. :-)
"And think of the alternative which would be to have no world forum whatsoever."
A world forum is a great idea. Google should work with world leaders on that.
"And think of the alternative which would be to have no world forum whatsoever."
No, not quite, but pretty close.
"and yes; stronger nations can choose to ignore their decisions. But doing so results in political costs,"
Yeah, a little scolding now and again.
"so there are SOME tangible negative consequences, even for strong nations who choose to disobey the UN."
Such as?
"But, for the most part, countries do abide by the UN because it creates a long shadow of the future and can lessen the degree if uncertainty in the international community."
Yeah. Countries follow the UN. That's why Burma is still under sanctions (and idiotic scheme that only hurts the populace). That's why the Japanese are still running around butchering whales. That's why there's a genocide in Darfur. That's why we're in Iraq. That's why there's still fighting in Chad. That's why Israelis and Palestinians are still going at each other.
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."
Benjamin Franklin
I'm sorry, you aren't going to get me to defend the UN. You can mock my post all you want-- but realize it's coming from an informed perspective. The UN sucks and everyone can attest to some way in which it's screwy. But to ignore the good that could come out of international institutions is short-sighted. All of the criticisms you present against the UN, like the sanctions on Burma and Japan's whaling, all have to do with what I've mentioned before: the UN has no enforcement power. So the alternative you're alluding to is either 1) an international institution should have enforcement capability or 2) forget the UN because it doesn't do anything, anyway. And since you said "thank god" to my statement of having no world government, I'm assuming you're leaning towards the latter. Mind you, a UN with enforcement mechanism could have prevented the genocide in Darfur-- but it's still a sovereign territory. And China's going to remind us of that if we forget. Don't blame the UN for it's problems: blame the countries that make it up.
States do have a vested interest in cooperation, and most states do cooperate. But to have countries agree on every issue is naive and idealistic-- and the US is not setting a great example either.
Now I fully understand your view. And now I see that I really agree with your view.
It's an inside joke thing...
I never said the UN is a wholly useless organization (cough Rwandacough). Yes. It has done some good, a very small amount, but some.
"All of the criticisms you present against the UN, like the sanctions on Burma and Japan's whaling, all have to do with what I've mentioned before: the UN has no enforcement power."
Quite. In other words, it's a big building that NYC pays for (and gets protests and traffic jams out of) where a bunch of people argue and then don't really do anything unless one of the nations on the security council wants to, which it would do with or without the UN.
"So the alternative you're alluding to is either 1) an international institution should have enforcement capability or 2) forget the UN because it doesn't do anything, anyway. And since you said "thank god" to my statement of having no world government, I'm assuming you're leaning towards the latter."
Yeah. I'm leaning toward the latter. The extreme uselessness of the UN outweighs the minuscule amount of good that it does.
"Mind you, a UN with enforcement mechanism could have prevented the genocide in Darfur-- but it's still a sovereign territory."
Yeah, but where would the soldiers come from? A country that isn't helping anyway?
"And China's going to remind us of that if we forget. Don't blame the UN for it's problems: blame the countries that make it up.""
That's all any organization is, made up of it's components. A government can't be corrupt, officials can be. A corporation doesn't make anything. The people who work for it do. The United Nations doesn't not do anything, it's the members who don't do anything.
"States do have a vested interest in cooperation, and most states do cooperate."
Agreed, and they'd do that without the UN.
"But to have countries agree on every issue is naive and idealistic-- and the US is not setting a great example either."
I don't think that nations would or should agree on everything. And the US is a great example, actually. We do what the UN wants (or try to work through it) when it's what we want and ignore it completely when it's not.
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."
Benjamin Franklin
Sure...The United Nations is a noble cause and it's a great goal. But they don't get anything done...ever. And we can't reform the UN...that will take another four billion hours of debate.
It's a good thing that the UN can't force its will on countries, but because of that also, nothing can be absolutely expected to be done.
It's a complicated little thing the UN's got going for itself.
It's an inside joke thing...
Hear! Hear!
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."
Benjamin Franklin