TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

UN ahead of its time?

Go To

GameChainsaw The Shadows Devour You. from sunshine and rainbows! Since: Oct, 2010
The Shadows Devour You.
#1: Jan 26th 2011 at 5:19:47 PM

Gah. I had a big, well thought out intro here a while ago, or at least I thought I did. Till I started to realise I didn't actually have a clue what I was talking about.

...anyway, to spare the thread about Hezbollah the horrors of derailing, the subject is the UN, how to improve it, whether its worth it, or indeed whether the whole thing should just be stripped out. Points of interest.

  • Purpose; what is the best purpose for a global governing body in this day and age?
  • Security Council-an unfair system, or a necessary part of it?

I'm sure more points will come up, but those are good opening points.

EDIT: Gah, the title is a relic of my first, rather more impressive (sounding) draft. Oh well...

edited 26th Jan '11 5:20:17 PM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.
silver2195 Since: Jan, 2001
#2: Jan 26th 2011 at 5:32:15 PM

Security Council-an unfair system, or a necessary part of it?

Both.

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#3: Jan 26th 2011 at 6:18:58 PM

I maintain my position from the other thread. The UN is not worth keeping anymore. Sooner or later they are going to make an enemy in the US who basically rips the rug out from under them and leaves them flapping in the breeze with no teeth and no power.

When you have human rights abusers investigating human rights supporters the system is too far gone to save. To say nothing of the many miserable failures it's had over things like Israel (you can't get an objective opinion in the General Assembly owing to many Muslim countries hating Israel, and the Security is even more polarized), Korea, Iran and many many many more in the last 65 years.

It's too far gone to save and wasn't built right at its beginning.

drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#4: Jan 26th 2011 at 6:23:24 PM

The UN is useless. International law is a joke. I've yet to see a situation improved by the application of either.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#5: Jan 26th 2011 at 6:27:49 PM

^ We've seen plenty of improvements through unilateral action however.

Take Iraq. 10 years ago it was a cesspit authoritarian dictatorship starving its people while coddling a corrupt Oil for Food Program. Today it is a parliamentarian democracy that is functional and taking care of its own security. It is also rapidly becoming one of the most advanced societies economically and philosophically in the Muslim world.

The UN opposed the actions that brought them from cesspit to having a future.

darksidevoid Anti-Gnosis Weapon from The Frontiers (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Robosexual
Anti-Gnosis Weapon
#6: Jan 26th 2011 at 6:31:34 PM

-_-;

So, what you're saying is that it would be better to intervene in the affairs of other countries whenever we feel like it, abandoning the notion of self-determination?

GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.
Wanderhome The Joke-Master Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Healthy, deeply-felt respect for this here Shotgun
The Joke-Master
#7: Jan 26th 2011 at 6:32:15 PM

[up] As long as we're still self-determining.

edited 26th Jan '11 6:32:27 PM by Wanderhome

MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#8: Jan 26th 2011 at 6:37:46 PM

^^ Considering the international arena did jack shit over a great many issues, unilateralism is the better choice. Evil or not.

You don't disarm belligerent states like Iran or North Korea through harsh words with no binding action or actual consequences. (There's nothing for North Korea to be sanctioned over for instance.) You don't politely ask invading countries to leave as if nothing happened like was the case in the early days leading to the Gulf War.

Then you have shit that they just flop around like a fish on a boat deck like happened in Georgia in 2008. The biggest opponents and players in the whole deal weren't the UN. They were unilateral (and some multi-lateral via the EU) actions carried out on their own accord.

Then you have cases where they actively obstruct two parties solving their differences. Take the 2006 war in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah. They should have been allowed to fight it out once and for all. The UN wouldn't have that, instead choosing to preserve the status quo of ever rising tensions and hatreds for each other. Now there will never be peace between those two sides without devolving into full-scale war first.

Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#9: Jan 26th 2011 at 6:44:18 PM

* Purpose; what is the best purpose for a global governing body in this day and age?

It's not a global government. That implies it has authority, power, and responsibilities that it doesn't. It's a place to go talk things out on "neutral" ground rather than just going to war more often.

Fight smart, not fair.
drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#10: Jan 26th 2011 at 6:59:05 PM

[up]Which, as can be seen by the proliferation of wars around the globe, hasn't helped much.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#11: Jan 26th 2011 at 7:00:05 PM

Some of those wars were made bigger by UN intervention, cases in point Iraq 1990 and Korea 1950.

edited 26th Jan '11 7:00:32 PM by MajorTom

Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#12: Jan 26th 2011 at 7:15:20 PM

They've all been small wars though. That's better.

Fight smart, not fair.
drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#13: Jan 26th 2011 at 7:16:42 PM

@Deboss: Yeah, I suppose so. We can ignore them easier that way.

I'd wager the threat of nuclear annihilation has done more for world peace than the UN...

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#14: Jan 26th 2011 at 7:18:07 PM

200,000+ casualties in Korea is small? 90,000 in the Third Indochina War is small? (Depending on your sources) over 1 million in Vietnam is small? 30,000+ in Iraq over the course of 33 days in 1991 is small?

Whatever it is you're on, I know people who would like to smoke it.

A lot of wars happened since the creation of the UN, a not insignificant number of them were quite large using casualty statistics alone.

Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#15: Jan 26th 2011 at 7:50:08 PM

I'd wager the threat of nuclear annihilation has done more for world peace than the UN...

True. Hm, perhaps compare the number of wars between non-nuclear powers?

Fight smart, not fair.
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#16: Jan 26th 2011 at 8:01:52 PM

I really wish that UN Peacekeepers were actually useful, because then I wouldn't mind being one.

But being a big blue target that has really stringent ROE effectively makes them useless, and has the potential to cost human lives needlessly. If the UN comes in for Peacekeeping, I'd want it to shitstomp the area it's keeping the peace in by saying "This is now a neutral zone. Nobody is to shoot at eachother, or us, or civilians. If you do so, we're going to find you and your violent affiliates and destroy them or arrest them."

Then you provide humanitarian aid while you enforce law and order in the UN zone, when things calm down and the local government has the ability to maintain order on its own, the ROE goes back to a defense-only stance where combat operations are allowed. Peacekeepers are worthless if they aren't allowed to actually get out there and keep the damn peace.

^

Most of those end up being proxy wars instigated by the nuclear powers because we're too afraid to actually go to war with eachother.

edited 26th Jan '11 8:02:37 PM by Barkey

PhilippeO Since: Oct, 2010
#17: Jan 27th 2011 at 12:22:43 AM

UN is not only Security Council, General Assembly and Peacekeeping. [down]

there is also many agencies that pretty useful like WHO, UNICEF, WWF, etc [down]

Star_Kindler from Here, of course Since: Mar, 2010
#18: Jan 27th 2011 at 2:31:13 AM

Is the UN only Security Council, General Assembly and Peacekeeping?

EDIT: Gasp! The guy above me answered my question before I asked! That's awesome!

(SERIOUS POST: The UN needs to change drastically in the near future or the thing is completely useless and countries truly committed to its ideals would be better off going elsewhere.)

C'est la vie.
Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#19: Jan 27th 2011 at 2:49:24 AM

They're already better off going elsewhere.

Fight smart, not fair.
saladofstones :V from Happy Place Since: Jan, 2011
:V
#20: Jan 27th 2011 at 7:55:16 AM

What I found funny is that the UN caused the issues in Darfur by removing mercenary control and Somailia by choosing sides in that conflict (I've heard, rather often, that the UN got a massive amount of money from the side they chose, but I don't know if thats true), and that when Rwanda was expierencing its genocidal civil war, the UN was ARGUING on the definition of Genocide. :V France finally entered and FFL forces restored some semblence of order.

I also know that UN forces in Somalia refused to help in the Black Hawk Down assist because it was too dangerous. The problem was that the Pakistani tanks were a key part of the plan and basically the officers on the ground decided not to go in, which forced APCS to go in and the APC drivers ended up having to leave early and left behind some of the guys anyways. That and the Tanks that did go didn't want to go through the barricades meaning they had to be dissembled. So in short, our UN allies were fucking useless.

Whats amusing is that the FFL do some Peacekeeper like things but their policy is different.

1.) Find out the different warlords and raid them to a degree not strong enough to destroy them, but to show them that the FFL is in charge here

2.) If they are attacked, they will defend their position then go out and eradicate whoever attacked them.

3.) They will allow and provide for aid and money to be distributed and to whatever degree they feel like, basically, will make sure its distributed appropriately.

4.) Whenever possibly get drunk and hire local prostitutes to stimulate the local economy. :V

All that said the FFL are still, for the lack of a better word, France's arm to carry out its intentions within Africa and to this goal they serve well.

Bangladesh does foot the majority of Peacekeepers but I don't know about the quality of their soldiers.

As for the UN doing things right? I know Germany has funded and managed attempts to add nuclear energy in Eastern Europe to basically offset Russian dominance in the region to great success but when I look at the groups involved, its Germany, Ukraine, and Switzerland through another organization not affiliated with the UN that they sponsored through the UN, from best I can tell, to get better funding.

edited 27th Jan '11 7:56:30 AM by saladofstones

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.
silver2195 Since: Jan, 2001
#21: Jan 27th 2011 at 9:20:52 AM

Keep in mind that the Rwandan genocide was largely France's fault to begin with.

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.
saladofstones :V from Happy Place Since: Jan, 2011
:V
#22: Jan 27th 2011 at 9:22:30 AM

It was Belgian, IIRC, or at least we had some stock there.

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#23: Jan 27th 2011 at 11:11:00 AM

Well let's not go too crazy with the UN hate here, because they do a lot of things other than peacekeeping, and peacekeeping is one of the smaller aspects of the UN. If you expect a global forum, where USA has veto power, to prevent wars, that is asking too much. The superpowers in our world, USA/Russia/UK/France/China, don't try to prevent wars, they run the UN, why would you expect wars to suddenly stop?

There are a number of conflict zones where UN assistance did help. As far as Darfur is concerned, I don't see how you can blame the UN, every single western power blocked action on the issue. The UN isn't a separate entity, it's the sum of its parts and if they refuse to take action, then the UN will do nothing.

Do you know why the UN was arguing over the definition of genocide during Rwanda? Because of USA. While France was arming and training the military that helped kill over 800 000 people (a racially tense situation caused by Belgium), USA was blocking the deployment of peacekeepers into the area.

The UN is ahead of its time because the world leaders of our nations are unwilling to cooperate to fix the issues of our time.

Major Tom would like to point out how "awesome" unilateral action has been for Iraq or other situations but let me remind you that the current Iraq war has produced over a million casualties and over four million refugees and turned Iraq into one of the worst middle east countries to live in. You can talk about democracy all you want, it doesn't mean much when rival gangs are blowing each other up in the streets getting thousands killed.

Let me also point out that the Korean War was because USSR boycotting the UNSC meeting, which allowed America to vote to go to war with Korea. The entire force of the UN went in except that due to the miscalculation by the headstrong American general, he got the Chinese involved and it became a stalemate. If USSR/USA worked to resolve their differences in the UN, Korea would have been reunited under the UN plan. They didn't and they each wanted their half under their control.

The UN isn't USA's tool for justifying its own actions and bringing up allies to do your dirty work. If the UN votes against the USA, that's because other people don't want you to do something. That's how civil discussion works. If you throw that in the face of everyone by unilaterally acting on your own, that's why the UN is failing to work, because USA is abusing its military power in the face of the entire world.

Try to actually talk to peacekeepers on a personal level who've been out on missions. ROE isn't their complaint, it's lack of international support. Politicians in western countries pay lip service to democracy and nation building, but when it comes to actually doing something, they're scarcely found. These people are usually quite intelligent and they know how things work. Dropping bombs and being action heroes, never gets anything done. If you have enough political will behind your UN force, no one would dare attack it. When the most powerful country in the world, USA, derides it and makes a joke out of peacekeeping (like for example, attempting to take out warlords in Somalia without telling the UN and then blindsiding them with a request for reinforcements, of course the Pakistanis were pissed. USA killed over a thousand civilians and then wanted Pakistani tanks to get them out of that mess), why would anybody else have to care? Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

saladofstones :V from Happy Place Since: Jan, 2011
:V
#24: Jan 27th 2011 at 11:12:32 AM

Killed over a thousand civilians running at them with guns.

I'm not sure if the UN and not the policy of MAD and nuclear deterrence hasn't done more for peace since there have been plenty of proxy wars and the profitability of arms.

IIRC, kidnapping warlords was just about all we had the authority to do, and I'd imagine allies should be prepared if shit hits the fan and they need to bail someone out. That this would be an inconvenience for them is a poor excuse. The issue was that they agreed to do it but then refused to do what we need tanks for, which is to lead the convoy, smash through barricades, and provide support.

Mc Arthur's plan, while it did bring in the Chinese, did break the stalemate.

As for Iraq, Barkey and some other guys I know who've been there seem to indicates different picture than what you are saying.

edited 27th Jan '11 11:18:32 AM by saladofstones

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.
Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#25: Jan 27th 2011 at 2:49:45 PM

First off, breadloaf, it's the USA.

That's...a little harsh. Also, you think France and the UK are more powerful than Germany and India? Really? But actually (and I opposed the Iraq War and the Vietnam War) the US declare war largely because the UN doesn't do anything. There's way too much inertia, because they can't vote effectively.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Total posts: 35
Top