The battle cry of the Kerry campaign, when it comes to international relations, seems to be “the United Nations!” The UN is the panacea, the miracle cure, the wonder of the modern age that solves all problems. “Get the UN involved.” “Turn it over to the UN.” Get the UN’s approval.” “Take the dispute to the UN.”
Just what is it about the United Nations that inspires such faith? What great achievements can be laid at its feet that give it such credibility? What ideals and principles does it embody that merits such trust? I went looking.
(Yeah, it’s another long one. Consider yourself warned.)
]]>< 
I could not agree with you more, the United Nations is a joke. While it has been successful in at least giving nations a forum before going to war, its peace keeping efforts, etc. have been completely spoiled by politics, poor management and more politics.
We could reform the UN by (a) restricting membership to democracies — eliminating China, or (b) add Japan and India, at a minimum, to the permanent Security Council. Or both.
UMm, “Monarchies need not apply”? I think you are being a little too restrictive on who qualifies as a democracy there.Monarchies in Europe include : Spain, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark…Luxembourg is a Duchy…Ok, OK, maybe you not worried about them. The UK? You know, these Brits who have Tony Blair as PM, the one you’re running ads to “Thank Tony”? In fact, same Queen as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica (and half the rest of the Carribbean) and ….well, are you absolutely certain that you want to exclude all of those countries from whatever new organisation you’re going to set up?
What I think you’re missing is that one does not have to be a Republic in order to be a Democracy. Just as being a Republic is no guarantee of being one either, as you note.
Tim, I meant “monarchies” that actually have monarchs that also serve as chief executive. The monarchies you cite are “constitutional monarchies” where the actual monarchs are largely figureheads.
I meant nations like Saudi Arabia, Brunei, etc. etc. where the monarch has serious power.
J.
OK, that’s fine. Just so long as the entry ticket for the new thing makes the same distinction.
Then again, I have to admit to desiring a little more QE II and a little less T. Blair, but that’s another matter 🙂
A couple of things.
I’d be interested in where you got your information on the UN from for two reasons. Firstly to separate opinion from fact and secondly as I want to know more about the UN and where criticism of it may be found.
While I have no idea as to your nationality I would be surprised if you were not a US citizen.
Americans are very quick to use words such as freedom, democracy and human rights, especially self-reflexively. While I would agree that the US in many respects does represent the liberal cause I would be careful bandying these words around without thought.
The U.S. is hardly a paragon of virtue where human rights is concerned. A few examples should serve to prove my assertion. Native American land claims, breaches of international sovereignty (Panama, Iraq), support, tacit or otherwise, of murderous dictators (Pinochet, Saddam Hussein). What about global rights to justice and a clean environment? Well scuppering the Kyoto Agreement and refusing to allow US personnel be tried for war crimes by international court are hardly moves in the right direction.
Democracy? The US has a two party system that to outsiders seems to represent the choice of the people to choose between two virtually indistinguishable candidates backed by the same elite groups.
Freedom? Freedom is nothing without power to effect change. In the US, as almost anywhere outside Scandinavian nations, this is the privelige of the rich.
Believe it or not I am not US bashing. My country, the UK, is certainly no better. Its history is tarnished with much the same global abuses as the US is perpetrating now. It goes with the position. You do because you can.
Back to the UN. I agree that it needs reforming to make it a more transparent, accountable organisation that actually does the job it is being funded to do. I would not however agree with scrapping the UN and starting again from scratch unless there was strong evidence that the benefits of doing so would outweigh the costs.
Given that it is a well known fact that the developing world has no voice in international affairs, and has little power to effect change to their benefit in every other arena does not their slight power at the UN strike you as merely just.
Finally, would you disband the UN Security Council? It’s not democratic, its dictatorial, wouldn’t you say?
A couple of things.
I’d be interested in where you got your information on the UN from for two reasons. Firstly to separate opinion from fact and secondly as I want to know more about the UN and where criticism of it may be found.
While I have no idea as to your nationality I would be surprised if you were not a US citizen.
Americans are very quick to use words such as freedom, democracy and human rights, especially self-reflexively. While I would agree that the US in many respects does represent the liberal cause I would be careful bandying these words around without thought.
The U.S. is hardly a paragon of virtue where human rights is concerned. A few examples should serve to prove my assertion. Native American land claims, breaches of international sovereignty (Panama, Iraq), support, tacit or otherwise, of murderous dictators (Pinochet, Saddam Hussein). What about global rights to justice and a clean environment? Well scuppering the Kyoto Agreement and refusing to allow US personnel be tried for war crimes by international court are hardly moves in the right direction.
Democracy? The US has a two party system that to outsiders seems to represent the choice of the people to choose between two virtually indistinguishable candidates backed by the same elite groups.
Freedom? Freedom is nothing without power to effect change. In the US, as almost anywhere outside Scandinavian nations, this is the privelige of the rich.
Believe it or not I am not US bashing. My country, the UK, is certainly no better. Its history is tarnished with much the same global abuses as the US is perpetrating now. It goes with the position. You do because you can.
Back to the UN. I agree that it needs reforming to make it a more transparent, accountable organisation that actually does the job it is being funded to do. I would not however agree with scrapping the UN and starting again from scratch unless there was strong evidence that the benefits of doing so would outweigh the costs.
Given that it is a well known fact that the developing world has no voice in international affairs, and has little power to effect change to their benefit in every other arena does not their slight power at the UN strike you as merely just.
Finally, would you disband the UN Security Council? It’s not democratic, its dictatorial, wouldn’t you say?