Opinion of the United Nations

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I am NOT a fan of Israel, but I think the UN is also rabidly anti Semitic.

[Sbane]

Those of you bitching about the supposed lack of US power in the UN do realize the US is one of five countries to hold permanent veto power? Those dictators you guys are so concerned about are basically powerless beyond giving speeches.

Do you guys realize Israel basically has a free pass to do whatever the hell it wants due to US veto power?

[Хahar 🤔]

I do very much enjoy not having to worry about smallpox.

[minionofmidas]

I do very much enjoy not having to worry about smallpox.

I rather miss the days when I used to worry about smallpox. Fun times. I want them back.

[Јas]

The United Nations does nothing more than serve as a forum for undemocratic, totalitarian governments to push their radical agenda on the rest of the world. 

Having seen some of the work of UNICEF, UNHCR, UNAIDS and other UN organisations in Malawi, I confess that it eludes me how they do "nothing more than serve as a forum for undemocratic, totalitarian governments to push their radical agenda on the rest of the world".

I'll admit that they're far from perfect, but there's no doubt that there are many people here who are better fed, better educated, better cared for and simply better off than would be the case were the UN not here.

Please do help me with understanding how actually this is all a plot by UN evildoers to facilitate a radically undemocratic and totalitarian agenda.

[justW353]

Somewhere in between.  It's a noble idea in principle, but the principle doesn't always hold up to reality.

[The Mikado]

The United Nations does nothing more than serve as a forum for undemocratic, totalitarian governments to push their radical agenda on the rest of the world. 

Having seen some of the work of UNICEF, UNHCR, UNAIDS and other UN organisations in Malawi, I confess that it eludes me how they do "nothing more than serve as a forum for undemocratic, totalitarian governments to push their radical agenda on the rest of the world".

I'll admit that they're far from perfect, but there's no doubt that there are many people here who are better fed, better educated, better cared for and simply better off than would be the case were the UN not here.

Please do help me with understanding how actually this is all a plot by UN evildoers to facilitate a radically undemocratic and totalitarian agenda.

The successful campaign against smallpox, the nearer-by-the-day campaign against malaria, childhood vaccinations, education, care, etc via UNICEF...how the hell can someone dislike this organization?

Glad to see my opinion backed up by an authority. 

[GMantis]

Freedom organization in principle and they do some good humanitarian work but it's too powerless to fulfill what it was set up to do.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

My belief is that from the humanitarian side, it does some incredible work - which gets dismissed far too easily.

From the other side, it is a toothless tiger - largely because the bargaining chips used to prevent another League of Nations from happening.

[Username MechaRFK]

My belief is that from the humanitarian side, it does some incredible work - which gets dismissed far too easily.

From the other side, it is a toothless tiger - largely because the bargaining chips used to prevent another League of Nations from happening.

[fezzyfestoon]

Not as big of a negative as people make it out to be. For all its ineffectiveness in many high-profile situations, its successes are massively important yet less noticed.

[I Am Feeblepizza.]

They have a noble goal but have utterly failed at reaching that goal.

[dead0man]

I am NOT a fan of Israel, but I think the UN is also rabidly anti Semitic.

Yeah, but antisemitism with no teeth isn't all that bad is it?

Do you guys realize Israel basically has a free pass to do whatever the hell it wants due to US veto power?

Then why don't they?  Do the other countries with veto power have "pets" too?  Why are they rarely talked about?  Probably has something to do with what Sanchez was talking about above.
Those of you bitching about the supposed lack of US power in the UN do realize the US is one of five countries to hold permanent veto power? Those dictators you guys are so concerned about are basically powerless beyond giving speeches.

[Gustaf]

Are we assuming that the UN humanitarian work would not be done if the UN wasn't around?

[Јas]

Are we assuming that the UN humanitarian work would not be done if the UN wasn't around?

Why would we assume that?

[Gustaf]

Are we assuming that the UN humanitarian work would not be done if the UN wasn't around?

Why would we assume that?

People seemed to be defending the UN based on things like disease prevention, etc. I must admit that I suspect that were those resources instead given to, say, Doctors Without Borders or some other less politicized organization we might get even better results.

[lowtech redneck]

So, the U.S. needs to pull out of the U.N....or at least stop making contributions until they embrace reform...

I don't particularly like the UN, but so long as we have a veto, we gain more by participating (even including the contributions) than we would outside of it.

[TheGlobalizer]

A pointless way of spending a lot of time, energy, and money to obtain very meager results.

I like the idea of countries getting together to talk in a quasi-neutral forum, but beyond that, the UN is a catastrophe, a trainwreck that never stops wrecking.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Are we assuming that the UN humanitarian work would not be done if the UN wasn't around?

Why would we assume that?

People seemed to be defending the UN based on things like disease prevention, etc. I must admit that I suspect that were those resources instead given to, say, Doctors Without Borders or some other less politicized organization we might get even better results.

Any organization used and funded by hundreds of governments united towards tackling a goal will inevitably become fairly politicized. Any organization only funded by like-minded governments (read Europe + the wealthy anglo countries + a few others) will inevitably accomplish less and still be very politicized and be viewed through a negative lense by other nations as a "colonial" organization.

[Sbane]

I am NOT a fan of Israel, but I think the UN is also rabidly anti Semitic.

Yeah, but antisemitism with no teeth isn't all that bad is it?

Do you guys realize Israel basically has a free pass to do whatever the hell it wants due to US veto power?

Then why don't they?  Do the other countries with veto power have "pets" too?  Why are they rarely talked about?  Probably has something to do with what Sanchez was talking about above.
Those of you bitching about the supposed lack of US power in the UN do realize the US is one of five countries to hold permanent veto power? Those dictators you guys are so concerned about are basically powerless beyond giving speeches.

Of course the other countries with veto powers have pets as well, though it's mainly the US now. Back in the day, the USSR obviously had many. This is an interesting chart of vetoes by the five countries during different periods of time.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I don't think we're nearly ready for a global government.  Therefore I think something like the structure of the UN is best... though I think the UN takes things a little too far.

I'd basically like a loose collective of all nations that focus solely on global initiatives.  The body would not be used to advance or hinder any one nation's interests.  Instead, it would focus on international natural disasters (such as large tropical storms, etc), scientific development, and yes... would help the impoverished.. globally.  That includes the impoverished in rich nations as well.

The organization would draft their monetary needs to complete the agreed on tasks, and member nations would be asked to contribute based on their ability to pay.  Member nations who do not pay the share they are asked to pay would lose clout within the organization relative to the amount they didn't pay.  Paying more, however, would not give you more clout, so as to avoid turning the organization into $$ for power.

Of course there are a lot of flaws in that.. but flaws are good.  Humans are a flawed species and wee are way too diverse to have a uniform, perfectly functioning government.  So we should model the international organization on who we are, and not who we wish to be while enjoying a slice of apple pie up high in the sky.

[Јas]

Are we assuming that the UN humanitarian work would not be done if the UN wasn't around?

Why would we assume that?

People seemed to be defending the UN based on things like disease prevention, etc. I must admit that I suspect that were those resources instead given to, say, Doctors Without Borders or some other less politicized organization we might get even better results.

MSF do great work, but obviously of a quite different nature and scope to the many UN organisations in the field. They also have less access to more dangerous spots than the UN can get. Few organisations can compare in terms of their global reach.

At any rate, I was just curious as to why it would be reasonable to judge an organisation without taking into account a lot of the good it does. The argument you present is heading in the direction of some libertarian arguments we see on here regarding the US Government - that any good that it does would be provided anyway by others in a free market (and probably provided better, etc.), so that leaves us with really only negative things to consider.

If we were to ignore their humanitarian work, what is it fair to judge the UN on? And do we judge it on the same criteria  you seem to suggest above - that if such things might be done by others, then we just ignore it?

A lot of folks here seem terribly put out by the idea that Heads of State/Government get to mouth off (some might call it free speech) at UNGA from time to time. I don't really see why it's that bothersome though - and anyway, it's not as if such people aren't capable of getting their message to play in the international media a lot of the time anyway. Which maybe means it should be ignored as well?

[Хahar 🤔]

A pointless way of spending a lot of time, energy, and money to obtain very meager results.

Again, the eradication of smallpox doesn't quite seem meager to me.

[TheGlobalizer]

A pointless way of spending a lot of time, energy, and money to obtain very meager results.

Again, the eradication of smallpox doesn't quite seem meager to me.

It does to me, when the purpose of the organization is to avoid international conflict.  That's like saying Obama isn't a terrible president because he made a half-court shot while shooting hoops one day.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

UN is far from being what it was intended to, but there's nothing better. Still, UN did some positive things that wouldn't be accomplished without it. Not enough, but still. So I voted FO.