Opinion of the United Nations

[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.

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?

I'm not saying we should ignore their humanitarian work. Nor do I think I'm in analogy with libertarians who think everything could be provided by the free market.

From an economic viewpoint it's always important to consider the alternative costs involved. Just because something yields a good result doesn't mean that it's good - one has to consider whether the result could have been achieved in a more efficient way.

Thus, my question was rather genuine. I was asking whether we were assuming that the UN good things would not be done without it. You now gave an argument of sorts as to why one might think that.

Then the argument cuts the other way. A fair retort from you could be whether organizations like MSF or the Red Cross would not be as corrupt and politically influenced as the UN if the funds currently given to the UN were directed to them. I'd say no to that though - I think there is more integrity and less suspectibility to politics in those NGOs.

When it comes to the scope and accessibility that might be a function of the UN's resources, at least to an extent. It might also be their political mandate though, which is where you would have a point.

I'm just pointing out that lauding, say, Saddam Hussein because his government provided electricity and water and stuff to people makes no sense because any government would likely have done that. You have to look at the alternatives.

[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.

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.

So why doesn't Israel do "whatever the hell it wants" if it has the US protecting it?  Also, it's interesting that the US total, even with all the protecting of Israel they do, haven't even come close to what the Soviets did before 1965.  Clearly the US is abusing the system.

[Insula Dei]

@Gustaf: From what I'm hearing, I would say that NGO's can be way less effective than UN organisations. This appearantly has to do with the general competence of those involved and the fact that the UN has more levers to pull when trying to get things done. I remember anecdotes about NGO's refusing UN protection in order to appear neutral and winding up paying large-ish amounts of money to local militia's, who would often be not trustworthy at all.

In addition to that, I suppose the UN is less 'trend'-concious than NGO's and makes sure that aid generally gets where it needs to be, rather than where the television camera's are.

Really, replacing the UN's humanitarian programmes with better funded NGO's, doesn't seem much different from replacing social security with charities to me.

[Insula Dei]

So why doesn't Israel do "whatever the hell it wants" if it has the US protecting it? 

It pretty much does. I can't think of any instance where Israel had to restrain itself out of fear for a UN intervention, can you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The high number of USSR vetoes might have to do with the facts that a) the UN as a whole was dominated almost entirely by the West and its allies untill the great decolonisation waves made the numerical balance of power shift towards the Third World. A fact the US was quite adept at exploiting, as evidenced by the way they played the institution during the Korea War, and b) the USSR was completely on its own in the SC well into the '70s, as Taiwan had the Chinese seat in that council and wouldn't give it up untill, what, the Shanghai Communiqué (?) (Honestly can't remember, I suppose it must have been then.)

[The Mikado]

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.

Is that the purpose, though?  Humanitarian aid and health programs like UNICEF and WHO have been part of the UN for quite some time.  I think there's a real divide in thread between people that judge the UN by the bulls**t puppet theater of the General Assembly and the people like me that judge the UN by what it actually does with UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO, and so on.

[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.

Is that the purpose, though?  Humanitarian aid and health programs like UNICEF and WHO have been part of the UN for quite some time.  I think there's a real divide in thread between people that judge the UN by the bulls**t puppet theater of the General Assembly and the people like me that judge the UN by what it actually does with UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO, and so on.

Yes, that is the purpose.  If you want to include all of the UN agencies, I'd call it an expansive, overreaching bureaucracy with an imprimatur of legitimacy that allows it to achieve positive outcomes.  Fine, but I don't like mucking up the peacemaking function with charity, particularly as the charity part becomes more and more a global social justice function.  It threatens to undermine the inherent value of  the "bulls**t puppet theater".

[dead0man]

So why doesn't Israel do "whatever the hell it wants" if it has the US protecting it?

It pretty much does. I can't think of any instance where Israel had to restrain itself out of fear for a UN intervention, can you?

Has anybody ever restrained itself due to fear of UN intervention?  Israel has, of course, restrained itself due to international pressure though.  Why else haven't they removed the native population of Gaza or the native Arab population in Jerusalem and the West Bank, it certainly isn't because of a lack of ability.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The high number of USSR vetoes might have to do with the facts that a) the UN as a whole was dominated almost entirely by the West and its allies untill the great decolonisation waves made the numerical balance of power shift towards the Third World. A fact the US was quite adept at exploiting, as evidenced by the way they played the institution during the Korea War, and b) the USSR was completely on its own in the SC well into the '70s, as Taiwan had the Chinese seat in that council and wouldn't give it up untill, what, the Shanghai Communiqué (?) (Honestly can't remember, I suppose it must have been then.)
[/quote]k

[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.

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.

So why doesn't Israel do "whatever the hell it wants" if it has the US protecting it?  Also, it's interesting that the US total, even with all the protecting of Israel they do, haven't even come close to what the Soviets did before 1965.  Clearly the US is abusing the system.

I'm not sure why Israel hasn't committed full scale genocide yet. Very perplexing question that.

I wasn't exactly trying to say the US is overly abusing the system (everyone abuses it to protect their interests and buddies), just pointing out how much more powerful it is than the tin foil dictators everyone is complaining about here. The UN's peacekeeping side of the ledger is pretty ineffective, and that is due to the design of the body. And yes, the US is also complicit in making it ineffective. Maybe we should have UN forces in the Gaza strip and the West Bank to protect them from the Israelis. What chance does that have of getting past the council?

[Insula Dei]

So why doesn't Israel do "whatever the hell it wants" if it has the US protecting it?

It pretty much does. I can't think of any instance where Israel had to restrain itself out of fear for a UN intervention, can you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But then that's like saying that Israel can't do what it wants becaus it can't colonise the moon. Some things are just impossible. In modern politics the genocide, which used to be a helpfull resource, has become a form of political suicide. No country on earth (and certainly not those in the West's sphere of influence) could easily get away with a direct massacre of a specific ethnical group.  

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's also wrong to look at the UN just through the eternal messy situation in Israel and those bits of the old Palestine Mandate that still bear the name.

[dead0man]

I wasn't exactly trying to say the US is overly abusing the system (everyone abuses it to protect their interests and buddies), just pointing out how much more powerful it is than the tin foil dictators everyone is complaining about here. The UN's peacekeeping side of the ledger is pretty ineffective, and that is due to the design of the body. And yes, the US is also complicit in making it ineffective. Maybe we should have UN forces in the Gaza strip and the West Bank to protect them from the Israelis. What chance does that have of getting past the council?

If they are protecting both ways and are effective, I wouldn't have a problem with it and I doubt Israel or the US would either.  I take it you think otherwise?

But then that's like saying that Israel can't do what it wants becaus it can't colonise the moon. Some things are just impossible. In modern politics the genocide, which used to be a helpfull resource, has become a form of political suicide. No country on earth (and certainly not those in the West's sphere of influence) could easily get away with a direct massacre of a specific ethnical group. 

Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully.  I didn't mean to imply genocide.  I meant fully taking over and shipping out anybody that starts sh**t.  I'm also not suggesting they could do this on a whim, that wouldn't be kosher.  But as we all know, once a decade or so we can be certain some douchebag group or another will give them a good excuse.  If they were the genocidal asshats some people like to think they are they would do it.  But they don't because they are not.  That's my point.  Thank you for letting me make it more clear.

[Sbane]

I wasn't exactly trying to say the US is overly abusing the system (everyone abuses it to protect their interests and buddies), just pointing out how much more powerful it is than the tin foil dictators everyone is complaining about here. The UN's peacekeeping side of the ledger is pretty ineffective, and that is due to the design of the body. And yes, the US is also complicit in making it ineffective. Maybe we should have UN forces in the Gaza strip and the West Bank to protect them from the Israelis. What chance does that have of getting past the council?

If they are protecting both ways and are effective, I wouldn't have a problem with it and I doubt Israel or the US would either.  I take it you think otherwise?

Why wouldn't I want them to protect Israel from suicide bombers, as far as that is possible to do? Oh wait, that's right, you think anyone who doesn't like Israel is automatically an anti-semite.

[dead0man]

Not at all. I think most of you buy into their (the actual anti-semites) propaganda a bit too much, but that's true of nearly everybody on some topic or another (myself no doubt included).  But no, I don't think everybody that falls on the wrong side of this debate is an anti-semite.

[Gustaf]

@Gustaf: From what I'm hearing, I would say that NGO's can be way less effective than UN organisations. This appearantly has to do with the general competence of those involved and the fact that the UN has more levers to pull when trying to get things done. I remember anecdotes about NGO's refusing UN protection in order to appear neutral and winding up paying large-ish amounts of money to local militia's, who would often be not trustworthy at all.

In addition to that, I suppose the UN is less 'trend'-concious than NGO's and makes sure that aid generally gets where it needs to be, rather than where the television camera's are.

Really, replacing the UN's humanitarian programmes with better funded NGO's, doesn't seem much different from replacing social security with charities to me.

Well, from what I'm hearing it might well be the other way around.

I don't suppose the UN isn't trend-conscious. My impression is that it is an extremely politicized organization, suspectible to various whims.

All NGOs aren't good of course. I would never give money to Amnesty or the Red Cross. But I am a monthly donor (measly amount, excused by the fact that I'm still a student) of MSF and I get their monthly letter or something like that. From what I've read there, they don't seem to do very trendy stuff. They're in all sorts of places, many of them not that well documented. At least that was my impression from that.

And I don't think the UN is comparable to social security. It's more like a corrupt, government run charity, where the mafia has been given a lot of votes.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What don't you like about Red Cross, Gustaf?

[minionofmidas]

*Most* third-world NGOs are scams or at least ways to make a living for some middle-class denizens of the country in question. Not the big names that get all the western private donor money, of course. Although they too are ways to make a living for their employees. That, rather than the stated purpose, is where the bulk of the money goes. That and the glossy brochures. Printed here, of course. (And of course, the kind of money the west, especially the UN organizations, pays is a real problem whenever a place is really swarming in their people. Think peacekeeping troops and such here.)

[Meclazine for Israel]

UN Summary

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5RpEqxh3Pp/

[wnwnwn]

Itself its good, the problem are its members.