Fuck the corrupt United Nations

[Brainaddict]

Of course I think the UN needs complete reform, particularly to rid it of corruption and wastage. But the problem with UN reform is everyone has to agree to it - and getting everyone to agree to anything in the UN....

 

[purves grundy]

One of the problems of an organisation like the UN is that it is only as good as its members - and a lot of its members are fuckheads. But that would be true of any international organisation.

Exactly. Can you imagine any powerful state agreeing to a truly independent international body with the power to act as international executive, legislature, and judiciary? The fact that we have the UN at all, looked at in a historical context, is a blessing. The very idea that what states do to their own population is the business of the outside world and their soveriegnty should be circumscribed, as international human rights law described by the various UN treaties tells us, is a massive step forward. That its realisation is patchy at best in no way entails that the system should be abandoned.

 

[pk]

Of course I think the UN needs complete reform, particularly to rid it of corruption and wastage. But the problem with UN reform is everyone has to agree to it - and getting everyone to agree to anything in the UN....

Why does everyone have to agree with it?

If it can be demonstrated that the UN is fucked from the top down, then public pressure would force the issue.

 

[CyberRose]

Why does everyone have to agree with it?

Eh?! Because unless they do then how can anything with the UN change?

 

[pk]

Eh?! Because unless they do then how can anything with the UN change?

It's not going to change waiting for a bunch of corrupt farts to change it.

If you start looking at the UN as a hindrance rather than some mystical solution to the world's ills, and have proper independent observation of their activities, that's a start.

 

[CyberRose]

... clarified in the post above yours!

A unified collection of NGOs, people who actually do the things the UN take credit for, Oxfam, Water Aid, Christian Aid, Medicin Sans Frontieres, etc.

Let them work unimpeded and backed up with satellite technology just in case the local dictator or US military wants to bomb them from the air.

So you think that a group of NGOs will be allowed to come up with foreign policy on behalf of nation states?! And like someone else said, what about peacekeepers? Will Oxfam be providing troops?! And who's gonna pay for all the activities of the NGOs?? The same states that you want cut out of the decision making process?!

 

[purves grundy]

It's not going to change waiting for a bunch of corrupt farts to change it.

If you start looking at the UN as a hindrance rather than some mystical solution to the world's ills, and have proper independent observation of their activities, that's a start.

If you look at the UN as a mystical solution then you're clearly looking at it wrongly. Why would you look at a creation of states as something mystical I'm sure Ban Ki Moon would and many others within the UN but not affiliated to states parties would love the UN to fulfill its remit more effectively, but it is a creation of states and it requires their consent to do anything.

 

[Brainaddict]

It's not going to change waiting for a bunch of corrupt farts to change it.

If you start looking at the UN as a hindrance rather than some mystical solution to the world's ills, and have proper independent observation of their activities, that's a start.

So you form some highminded panel with zero national interests in order to reform the UN and you ask them to come up with objectively the best way to reorganise it. They do this, and then China decides they don't like part of it. They say they'll withdraw if the changes go ahead. Do you (a) let the UN continue as it is or (b) create the seeds of China versus the New UN?

Then another country objects to something else - the US perhaps - it's not an improbable scenario. They throw down the same ultimatum - don't make that change or we leave. So do half a dozen other large countries. What do you do now? The UN is no longer the UN -it's just one power bloc competing with other power blocs formed of countries that fell out with system and went it alone. It's existence is now more likely to create global tensions rather than defuse them and it has lost its legitimacy. What's the point in it now?

That's why you need everyone to agree. And needing everyone to agree is why reform doesn't happen.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

... clarified in the post above yours!

A unified collection of NGOs, people who actually do the things the UN take credit for, Oxfam, Water Aid, Christian Aid, Medicin Sans Frontieres, etc.

Let them work unimpeded and backed up with satellite technology just in case the local dictator or US military wants to bomb them from the air.

yeah like any of those businesses masquerading as charities are doing it for human good...

if you think the UN is partisan and unaccoutnable you haven't a Scoobie about NGO's...

fuck the lot of them.

We should have a world council which is basically ana arbiter of human rights legislation and has soverginty over all nation states and all corperations...

however that's facism isn't it...

 

[CyberRose]

It's not going to change waiting for a bunch of corrupt farts to change it.

If you start looking at the UN as a hindrance rather than some mystical solution to the world's ills, and have proper independent observation of their activities, that's a start.

I think the UN is and always will be constrained the policy interests of those on the Security Council. However, please don't fall into the trap of thinking the UN is only involved in security affairs and conflict resolution. As important as it is, the UN has many many many other functions other than sending peacekeepers somewhere. Also don't even think about trying to pin the blame solely on America for the UN's reluctance to help out in humanitarian disasters. Sure they back Israel and veto action against them, but all the other members are guilty of using their veto to suit their own needs. You mention Darfur - the UN cannot take any action because of the Chinese veto. France used their veto to block action against Iraq. Russia used their veto to block action against Serbia over Kosovo.

And Iraq and Kosovo are significant because you can then say that those wars are illegal. And that is something else that you need to understand about the UN. It's not just about action, but about bringing all the states in the world together to agree on a set of principles and laws so that we can decide on what actions are "right" and what actions are "wrong". Otherwise, without these benchmarks, it's just a free for all, and that is not desireable.

 

[pk]

yeah like any of those businesses masquerading as charities are doing it for human good...

Having worked for a couple of them, yes, I do think they achieve more on the ground in terms of famine relief and the like than the UN do, and their overheads are almost non existent in comparison.

Trouble is, they like to piss about to the extent of farce, witness the tsunami aftermath where UNHCR wankers were ripping up row upon row of brand new Oxfam sponsored chemical toilets and replacing them with their own branded ones because they knew that's where the cameras were going to be the next day.

 

[pk]

As for China - boycott their Olympics, and fund Uyghur and Tibetan militia to fuck it up good and proper.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Having worked for a couple of them, yes, I do think they achieve more on the ground in terms of famine relief and the like than the UN do, and their overheads are almost non existent in comparison.

Trouble is, they like to piss about to the extent of farce, witness the tsunami aftermath where UNHCR wankers were ripping up row upon row of brand new Oxfam sponsored chemical toilets and replacing them with their own branded ones because they knew that's where the cameras were going to be the next day.

mate ngos are as bad.

the point of an ngo is to make itself longterm unemployed right... they go in skill the locals empower them they then take over the project the ngo is disbanded that's the point of them...

name on NGO in the last 30 years which hasn't restructrue it's global mission to continue it's campagin... not one of them has done themselves out of a job indeed they have along with the flip side of the guilt poltics issues chuggers not once done anything which would upset the indsutry apple cart...

the indivdual work they do may be effective to the indivual but as long as we have the apologist groups for western forgien policy in difference who will with bleeding heart stories go to the public and emtionally blackmail them into parting with there personal cash on top of not mentioning it was the mismanagment and spending of the money which they paid in tax which cased the situatuion in the first place. (pay for the problem to be created pay for the problem to be solved...)

how can they be a legitimate force in global efforts long term...

 

[pk]

The NGOs I worked for weren't buying brand new 4x4s and reinforcing expensive compounds like the UN do.

Neither did they send peacekeeping troops to Africa and Asia where they started spreading the AIDS virus, and subsequently covered it up for five years without lifting a finger, unlike the UN.
Cambodia owes its AIDS problem almost exclusively to the UN because of this.

Nor did they make billions in profit from the oil for food scandals, helping Al Qaeda and senior figures in the Taliban make stupid amounts of money via Dubai's oil companies.... as well as ensuring the Swiss, American, British and French banks were well and truly fattened whilst the people of Iraq were starving under Saddam.

Sure, every company has it's share of corruption, and no NGO will ever be completely free from it, but there is no comparison there with the sheer scale of damage done by the United Nations.

This guy sums it up for me...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-253es.html

 

[coccinelle]

Also don't even think about trying to pin the blame solely on America for the UN's reluctance to help out in humanitarian disasters. Sure they back Israel and veto action against them, but all the other members are guilty of using their veto to suit their own needs. You mention Darfur - the UN cannot take any action because of the Chinese veto. France used their veto to block action against Iraq. Russia used their veto to block action against Serbia over Kosovo.

America probably did popularise the concept of using the veto to protect its (ie Israel's) own interests so whenever a resolution comes before the Security Council that is even mildly critical of Israel, you know the Americans will use their veto.

Everyone knows that Darfur is a shambles that needs sorting out. But the Chinese will cynically use their veto most probably because they have seen America do exactl;y the same thing dozens of times in the past.

 

[Andy the Don]

So basically we saying is that it is the UN Security Council needs sorting..??
The current five permanent members have too much power in their veto. The power of veto needs to be given to other members. I would expand the permanent members of the security council be including countries like India, Japan & Brazil, regional superpowers.

 

[pk]

Everyone knows that Darfur is a shambles that needs sorting out. But the Chinese will cynically use their veto most probably because they have seen America do exactly the same thing dozens of times in the past.

Of course they will.

My solution would be to put Israeli troops in the Sudan to protect the villagers from government attacks, and put Albanian peacekeepers into Israel.
And fuck Beijing.

 

[Spion]

Nations are shit. The UN is composed of nations. So yes, it's shit. But not having it (or some equivalent) would be even worse.

Why? What good has the UN ever done?

The pile of bodies and ruined lives its resolutions have brought about is a mile high.

 

[skyscraper101]

Are we talking the gunboat diplomacy of Kirk or the wiberal handwringing of Picard?

Picard methinks

 

[Spion]

Nations are shit. The UN is composed of nations. So yes, it's shit. But not having it (or some equivalent) would be even worse.

PS, you mean states not nations. There's a big difference

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

The NGOs I worked for weren't buying brand new 4x4s and reinforcing expensive compounds like the UN do.

Neither did they send peacekeeping troops to Africa and Asia where they started spreading the AIDS virus, and subsequently covered it up for five years without lifting a finger, unlike the UN.
Cambodia owes its AIDS problem almost exclusively to the UN because of this.

Nor did they make billions in profit from the oil for food scandals, helping Al Qaeda and senior figures in the Taliban make stupid amounts of money via Dubai's oil companies.... as well as ensuring the Swiss, American, British and French banks were well and truly fattened whilst the people of Iraq were starving under Saddam.

Sure, every company has it's share of corruption, and no NGO will ever be completely free from it, but there is no comparison there with the sheer scale of damage done by the United Nations.

This guy sums it up for me...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-253es.html

i'm not pciking on specifics i'm saying the whole concept is flawed they are supposed to help the local population help themselves set up and rn thsoe servces then sod off as they allow/have trained the locals to do it for themselves.

instead they entrench themselves year on year and therefore make the local population more reliant on aid not less.

This deskills the population and at the same time disempowers them further this then justifies them asking for more money which is then of course used to fund more of the same. viccious circle,, and the locals population always suffers from this built in design flaw....

 

[pk]

Well, as I said - the two NGOs I worked for were concerned only with getting the locals to be self sufficient, and not to be there unless needed.

Unlike the UN.

 

[Poi E]

The pile of bodies and ruined lives its resolutions have brought about is a mile high.

What instances are you thinking of?

 

[Spion]

What instances are you thinking of?

I'm mostly thinking of the partition of Palestine, but there are numerous other UN resolutions and ceasefires, in Palestine in '48 and later in Lebanon, which acted only to allow Israeli re-supply and consolidation before they moved to take more territory.

Then there are the resolutions ignored: for the return of refugees, to withdraw from the '67 territories - all of them not worth the paper they're written on

 

[pk]

Sanctions against Iraq, failure to take punitive action against Israel, Sudan...

And now Kosovo, a colossal fuck up that may well end up in a bitter bloody battle could be put down to petty point scoring.

 

[Brainaddict]

I'm mostly thinking of the partition of Palestine, but there are numerous other UN resolutions and ceasefires, in Palestine in '48 and later in Lebanon, which acted only to allow Israeli re-supply and consolidation before they moved to take more territory.

Then there are the resolutions ignored: for the return of refugees, to withdraw from the '67 territories - all of them not worth the paper they're written on

You're focussing on one place where the UN has really failed - but it's a failure of the international community, not the UN's fault per se. And while the UN was failing in the Middle East it was also busy in a lot of other places, often a lot more successfully.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Well, as I said - the two NGOs I worked for were concerned only with getting the locals to be self sufficient, and not to be there unless needed.

Unlike the UN.

NGO's are usually the UN's Quangos, and like all minor departments get cuaght up in the bidding war for funding meaning that often real need is supplanted by measureable need ie what they can report back on. Once funding is affected by cash influx or reduction then this drives the cocerns of the business model not the actions taken any more

Again i'm not saying your ngos but more generally this is the design.

NGO's are as paracistic in their own way as the UN is toothless...

but on the other hand giving the UN power or supreme control would seem a bit world police for my liking... who do you appeal to when the UN say bad boy...

What's needed is the removeal of the veto or at least a curtainling of it to say you can use this 5 times a year no veto can be used consectutively ie if you voted down some ones humans rights refroms once you can't do it again, every time the issue comes up.

If there's a 3 thrid majority agreement no veto can be used.

this would start the whole diplomatic process up again rather than it being a whole caravan of gravy train twats on board people would have to talk and make agreements and discuss and come to resolution. they would be forced in to action.

Membership should be manditory and your veto and any other priviledges gained are suspended if you fall more than 3 payments behind... (like they insist is put into place via the IMF for loans.)

vested inttrests would need to be declared in all cases such as the taliban visit to texas.

Retrosepctive condonement of action would be aboloished.

 

[Spion]

You're focussing on one place where the UN has really failed - but it's a failure of the international community, not the UN's fault per se. And while the UN was failing in the Middle East it was also busy in a lot of other places, often a lot more successfully.

Such as?

 

[pk]

What's needed is the removeal of the veto or at least a curtainling of it to say you can use this 5 times a year no veto can be used consectutively ie if you voted down some ones humans rights refroms once you can't do it again, every time the issue comes up.

If there's a 3 thrid majority agreement no veto can be used.

That makes sense. It would be good to see the US pissing and moaning about it for months on end too.

Chances of it happening though?

None. Hence my anger.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

That makes sense. It would be good to see the US pissing and moaning about it for months on end too.

Chances of it happening though?

None. Hence my anger.

I dunno there was some moves to lose the veto a few years ago i think it failed obviously but I hope it's like austraila ceasing to have saxecoburg gotha as their head of state only a matter of time.

I guess what they also need is in essence a second house which can envoke the un equiverlent of the parliment act and over rule them . Like a reverse house of lords.