Who believes the United Nations should still be relied on for anything? This corrupt and failed experiment should be abolished at this point. It simply cannot be salvaged at this point. Cuba now sits on the United Nations Human Rights Council along with such luminaries of human rights as Malaysia and Saudi Arabia.
Anyone who seriously believes in the United Nations right now has a rather slim grasp on reality. This organization tolerates slaughters, engages in sexual slavery and reliably supports dictatorships all across the world. Evict the bums and turn that nice chunk of real estate in New York City into a theme park or something.
(BTW, absolutely killer line over at Publius Pundit: "(Cuba) has a human rights record that would blanch an onyx.". Beautiful!)
UPDATE: This New York Times article describes the election process. Which is pretty silly when campaign literature greets the delegates at their desks. Then comes the real kicker: The members have to investigate themselves. This should be rich.
Once again, all you seem to have to offer is another outlet for simplisitc far-right talking points.
The same people who are most resistant to the notion of a transnational organization being a source of authorty and power (and I resist that notion too), then turn around and criticize the organization for failing to act like a transnational source of authorty and power should act.
The UN is not a world government. It is not an embodiment of moral authority on a global scale. It is, and was meant to be, a forum at which all the worlds governments can interact with words, to allow them all to hear and to get some understanding of where their neighbors and enemies are coming from, with the hope that the tragic misunderstandings that sometimes lead to war, can be avoided.
Having no UN would make the world a far more dangerous place, because the UN offers a place where international greivances can be aired. Without such a forum, nations may see few alternatives other than to redress their greivances with arms. It is no magic solution, but it is a viable option for confict resolution that significantly lessens the tendencies to elevate conflicts to violence.
Having a UN type organization that fully reflected the democratic will of all the people in the world and which would be a shining examplar of moral values might be a wonderful thing – but it would therby take the form of a global government – something that conservatives would be extremely resistant to. In any case, the evolution of the global system is not nearly advanced sufficiently to generate and support such a body.
If you want a nice analogy, think of the Loya Jirga that we sponsered in Afghanistan. OK, its not a perfect analogy becuase that body took the form of, and generated a real government. But there are some similarites that can be instructive. The LJ was formed by gathering together all of the leaders of the various communities in an area which lacked any central authority. Like the UN, it was essentially a den of theives. The representatives were warlords. They set up committees, and ministries that, like the UN HRC were tasked to promote humanistic or moral values, but whose operation was/is deeply corrupted. Any and all criticisms that you level at the UN would apply to the LJ, and the subsequent Afghan government in spades.
And yet, serious people do not look at this government in a snapshot view and compare it to what we all believe it should be, and then conclude that it should be dissolved. We understand the context, and the fact that this is the first step down a very long road. We all hope that the government of Afghanistan will someday resemble the government of North Dakota, but for now we can take satisfaction in knowing that it is considerably better than what existed before, is infintly better than an anarchic situation, and that with constant pressure from the outside (and from the people) we can hope that it will continue on a postive trajectory.
The UN is the first draft of a global integration institution (if you ignore the League of Nations which was more of an attempt at a first draft). The criticisms are all valid – we need to constantly apply pressure to keep the institution evolving in a positive direction. But to look at what it is today, and to say that it should simply be abandonded is, IMHO, incredibly dumb.
The world is becoming ever more interconnected and “globalized”, by the minute. With interconnectedness comes infinite possibilities of conflict. A global forum for conflict resolution becomes more necessary every day. Criticize and keep pushing for improvement, but calling for its dissolution is just sticking your head in the sand and pretending that the world can be like it was a century ago.
Yeah, I guess I’m not as nuanced as you are, thanks for noticing.
It’s too corrupt to be worthwhile.
Oh Gaius,
I hope you realize that my criticisms are meant to be constructive. I like to think that you are a good guy – your heart seems to be in the right place, and you surely seem to be someone willing to engage on just about every issue that comes along. So, whats up with this “nuance” bit? It seems to be a code word on the right for – “someone who is thinking instead of gut-reacting”. You have a problem with applying intellegence to the problems we encounter in the world? Since when should we Americans, blessed with such opportunities for education and learning, make apologies for trying to figure out, with our brains, how best to deal with problems?
The UN thing is a perfect example. With any real-world understanding of what the UN is, and a vision of what it can be, it should be a perfect opportunity for us to use our intellegence, whatever wisdom we have, and our energy, to shape the way the international community evolves in the future. THe UN is our project – we dreamed it up, and it is sickening to here people like you argue that we should abandon it. What is the alternative? To use violence, our military, to establish a global regime by force? There really are some nutjobs who do envision an American empire. But America has always conceived of itself as a different kind of nation, and a different kind of global power. We set up the UN because we were determined to craft a peaceful path for the evolution of the global community. Why on earth would any sane person argue to abandon that?
Sure it is frustrating that it takes a very long time. THe UN is not going to be the shining examplar in our own lifetime. It is a long process, but it is a deeply American project, and we should not abandon it.
Anyway, this argument is pretty silly, when you really get down to it. UN abandonment arguments are completely fringe nutjobs types of arguments. No actual government of the United States is going to abandon the UN, because they all understand the points I have laid out, no matter how Republican or conservative they are.
Au contraire:
The UN is an obviously failed institution. It’s corrupt, protects tyrants, obstructs human progress, and it’s a waste of time and money.
The UN is beyond useless, it’s a mockery of itself.
In the abstract, the idea of a UN is a fine vision, but the reality is anathema to the dignity of man. Time to face facts, not bow down to worship a sugar coated nightmare.