Is the UN even useful anymore?

[Peter Quill]

I pondered on this recently. With countries like Russia and China violating international law, I wonder what the UN is doing. 

I also find it unfair that only 5 nations (namely the US, the UK, France, and Russia and China, who by the way, are blatant violators of international law, as I said) have veto powers on who should be admitted into the UN. Even Erdogan hates it!

So, my question is, are they still useful anymore?

Also, related comic:

[Fox Fire]

The UN is not the best, but they are not entirely useless. Since the creation of the UN, and because of the standards they layed down, there has not been a third world war. They also help with a whole lot more than trying to resolve conflicts, such as, but not limited to, education, economic development, energy, food, agriculture, health, scientific development, etc. 

[LordRahl2]

The UN, a body dedicated extension of US international norms, was never incredibly useful.  It does help to have a place to talk (behind closed doors) - making it easier to reduce confusion as to your States intention.

 

So as far as the UN was ever useful it retains about the same level of value.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

It has caused more harmful events than "good" events.

[Abu Haddad]

The UN is not the best, but they are not entirely useless. Since the creation of the UN, and because of the standards they layed down, there has not been a third world war. They also help with a whole lot more than trying to resolve conflicts, such as, but not limited to, education, economic development, energy, food, agriculture, health, scientific development, etc.

 

The only reason there hasn't been WW3 is coz of nukes and Mutualy Assured Destruction Edited December 4, 2015 by Abu Haddad

[Jose Rodriguez III]

Off the top of my head, the most successful instance of UN action was the eradication of polio programs in the developing world after the introduction of the cure alongside WHO so they've at least got that to their name. Then there is some humanitarian stuff here and there with varying success. Though on a whole the organization is questionable.

[MrsPigeon]

I think you have to approach this question under the right understanding of what the UN is actually supposed to do. Generally, it was set up to provide a forum for international cooperation. Some successes include Sierra Leone and Burundi, but mind you there are more failures in Africa than successes. Nonetheless, the UN and other humanitarian organizations provide much needed medical, residential, and resource support to developing countries.

 

Many people think the UN fails at international cooperation. This might be true, but this due, in part, to sovereignty. Nothing discussed in the UN is legally binding since a leader keeps sovereignty over their nation. On the other hand, countries have used the UN for everything from putting sanctions on Russia (which, whatever your opinion, has been partly a success) to environmental reform (UN climate summit is happening now!), and even scientific research.

 

All in all, the UN does a lot more than people think. So I wouldn't say it's useless by any means.

[Moreau]

NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN

[Buorhann]

It has caused more harmful events than "good" events.

 

 

How do you back up this claim?

[Solomon]

The UN has achieved a lot but it is politically hobbled by the ability of some Security Council members to veto resolutions. Would those of you who live in countries which have UNSC veto power (China, France Russia, UK, US) be willing to give it up in order to make the UN more politically effective?

[Fox Fire]

The UN has achieved a lot but it is politically hobbled by the ability of some Security Council members to veto resolutions. Would those of you who live in countries which have UNSC veto power (China, France Russia, UK, US) be willing to give it up in order to make the UN more politically effective?

I'm not sure. Maybe. I do think that trying to remove Russias veto power/trying to remove them from the UNSC is absurd. (Not that it's legally possible according to the UN charter).

[WISD0MTREE]

Wasn't the UN trying to find that African warlord who kidnapped those girls? I don't remember them ever being recovered... 

[Fox Fire]

Wasn't the UN trying to find that African warlord who kidnapped those girls? I don't remember them ever being recovered... 

Which ones? There was more than one case last I remember.

[WISD0MTREE]

Which ones? There was more than one case last I remember.

All of them. 

[Fox Fire]

All of them. 

I believe some were rescued. Then suddenly the media stopped covering it after claiming that Boko Haram was on the verge of being crushed.. That generally means something took a turn that opposes the story the media was dishing out. For example, Iraq/ISIS. 

"US troops have pulled out of Iraq today. Obama is sure the Iraqis can manage themselves*

*Nation descends into total chaos and war for months until eventually 1/3 of Iraq is literally taken over*

"Some new terror group has taken over 1/3 of Iraq today"

 

Media doesn't like reporting on things that make our side of conflicts look bad. 

Edited December 5, 2015 by Fox Fire

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Who would have thought that a de jure organization with close to zero de facto power would be irrelevant.

[Rozalia]

I like that you mention Russia and China violating international law yet don't mention the fact America does too (http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/11/us-violations-of-international-law/). Also mentioning the words of Erdogan has to be a joke because hilarious if not. Erdogan's problem isn't that 5 countries have veto powers, but that Turkey doesn't have that power meaning he won't be able to veto the Kurdistan he hates so much and will have to get on his knees and beg the Americans to do it for him instead. 

 

As for the matter at hand itself. The UN is and will always be a joke much like all other similar organisations. They can help bring down some minor African warlord here and there and pat themselves on the back like grand saviours, but do nothing when the big boys do as they like. Their most relevant use is being a casus belli dispenser ironically as they're supposed to "stop war".

Edited December 5, 2015 by Rozalia

[Caecus]

I like that you mention Russia and China violating international law yet don't mention the fact America does too (http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/11/us-violations-of-international-law/). Also mentioning the words of Erdogan has to be a joke because hilarious if not. Erdogan's problem isn't that 5 countries have veto powers, but that Turkey doesn't have that power meaning he won't be able to veto the Kurdistan he hates so much and will have to get on his knees and beg the Americans to do it for him instead. 

 

As for the matter at hand itself. The UN is and will always be a joke much like all other similar organisations. They can help bring down some minor African warlord here and there and pat themselves on the back like grand saviours, but do nothing when the big boys do as they like. Their most relevant use is being a casus belli dispenser ironically as they're supposed to "stop war".

 

The UN is the brainchild of the American hegemonic peace. The effectiveness of the UN entirely depends upon the US ability to enforce its ideals. If you want the UN to have real power, force the demilitarization of all nations and form a federal system from the UN. 

[Abu Haddad]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35010363

[Captain_Vietnam]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35010363

abu

 

can you explain what your point is??? the kurds are better then isis and we can see that UN is concerned. so are you trying to say they're a good or bad thing????

[Clarke]

While it is popular opinion to say the UN is useless, the fact that the humanity hasn't gone extincted or taking part in another world war speaks volumes of how world politics works to some degree, and nukes. A world without structure doesn't have has many freedoms I fear. 

 

I think the major problem is people whining about Russia and China breaking laws when the US is the biggest breaker of the laws and has allies which also break them constantly. If you come from that bias then of course the UN seems useless because a country you don't like is doing the same thing your country is doing, that's so not fair. 

Turkey is an awful country as well, not sure they have any room to complain due to the various awful things done by them over the years and currently. 

Edited December 6, 2015 by Clarke

[Abu Haddad]

If UN i so concerned why don't they do something about instead of sitting around waiting for it to end and punishing the losers

[Moon Man]

UN was never all that useful to begin with. The US ends up being the only ones that actually do anything under the UN. China and Russia can do whatever they want because they know that the UN wont mess with a nuclear power. North Korea and Iran are also developing nuclear weapons while UN are sitting on their thumbs and not doing anything

[WISD0MTREE]

North Korea and Iran are also developing nuclear weapons while UN are sitting on their thumbs and not doing anything

To be fair, the UN is screwed anyway with DPRK. If they invade to remove the WMDs and actually win, they will be "war criminals" on CNN and would have to deal with a huge humanitarian crisis. (I'd still prefer the latter) 

[Ekejen Luish]

What are you all idiots?

 

The UN is obviously the only way Earth will be able to unite against alien forces... not that I know anything about an alien invasion...