It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can the U.N. ever live up to its ideals?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I've been thinking about the United Nations ( www.un.org... ) a lot lately.

It was founded by the US, UK, France, USSR, China, and the rest of the Allied countries after World War II ended in order to prevent World War III. Not by being a "world government" of any kind, but by being a forum where it can act as a clearinghouse for treaties between nations, keeping them on file and where the rest of the world could see them. By giving nations and their borders legitmacy, as well as the treaties they sign, with U.N. recognition. By being a place where disputes can be settled peacefully, with diplomats instead of armed forces. By being a place where only global treaties could make sense (such as the Law of The Sea and how satellites are placed in Earth orbit). By being an organization that works for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all of humanity.


All the original ideas and aspirations of the U.N. sounds great; the U.N. Charter is a good read, and I even like the U.N. flag.


But my question is... What happened? Is it just me, or has corruption coupled with letting nations that treat their own people like crap and threaten their neighbors (such as dictatorships and Communist nations) be members in good standing along with democratic nations created an environment where the U.N. has lost all legitamacy?
(Well, the USSR and China were Communist nations at the U.N.'s founding, so perhaps the problems started on Day 1...)

What do you think? ATS has members from all over the world, so this is the perfect place to ask this question!
Here we can get perspectives on how the U.N. effects people's lives and the policies of the nations they live in from all over the world...




posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   
hey i'm completely with you, really on everything you said. sorry i can't offer an aswer, i'm just as lost on the U.N. as yourself.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Well, this surprised me... the U.N. has its own university?


United Nations University
www.unu.edu...
(located in Tokyo, Japan)

Well, I don't know what the full story may be, but at least on the surface, it sounds nice. But what kind of job can you get with degrees like this, other than working for the U.N.? (Or perhaps other international organizations, like NATO or the EU...)

Degrees Offered By Theme:

1. Peace
-International Relations
-UN System
-Human Security
-Armed Conflicts

2. Governance
-Human Rights & Ethics
-Democracy & Civil Society
-Leadership
-Governance

3. Development
-Globalization & Development
-Growth & Employment
-Poverty & Basic Needs
-Urbanization

4. Science, Technology, & Society
-Innovation
-Info & Bio Technologies
-Software Technology
-Food and Nutrition

5. Environment
-Resource Management
-Sustainable Industry & Cities
-Water
-Global Climate & Governance

On the other hand, here's a website I've discovered while researching -- it's known simply as "Get US out of the UN!"
www.getusout.org...

Indeed, if the charges against the U.N. made on this website are accurate, then the U.N. is trying to become a micromanaging global government of sorts, and needs to either be reformed and rebuilt from the ground up, or scrapped altogether...


What do you think?



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I agree that the U.N. is a stagnant bowl of toilet water that is long overdue for a flushing.

Unfortunately though, that would only solve half of our problem. As long as we have a State Department that is more concerned whoring out our sovereignty and kissing international a$$ than they are with genuine American interests, getting rid of the U.N. wont make much difference.

With the exception of the Sec. of State that changes with administrations, elected officials have no say in who will be filling senior positions in the State Department.

Heck, they cant even be fired if convicted of a felony, just read this.


www.frontpagemag.com...



Even most senior positions are filled by careerists, people who do not change from one administration to the next. And because of union rules that even Jimmy Hoffa never would have had the guts to demand, State’s career Foreign Service employees can’t be fired by the Secretary of State—even for a felony conviction.

Sounds crazy, yet it is sadly true. Clinton’s Secretary of State Warren Christopher ignored personnel policy and fired a woman who had plea-bargained to a felony count—of defrauding the State Department. She sued, she won, she got her job back, and got back pay. Why? Because, the court ruled, the Secretary of State can’t fire even a convicted felon.

To add one more level of institutionalized insanity, the Secretary of State does not even have any authority over personnel decisions, except for the small percent that are considered politically-appointable. All hiring, firing, transferring, and promoting is done by a panel of senior Foreign Service Officers (FSOs).

This presents very real political problems, especially when current FSOs harbor as much contempt for Bush as the 26 signers of the letter explicitly endorsing the defeat of the President come November.



They cant get rid of them even if they are caught red handed and convicted for stealing from the very people they would presume to represent.

When we eventually get around to kicking the U.N. to the curb for future trash collection, the State Department has got to go as well (or undergoe a serious restructuring from the ground up). The more I read about these unelected goons and the decisions they make supposedly in the best interest of America, the more I think were long overdue for a good old fashioned "Commie Witch Hunt".




[edit on 29-7-2004 by Crazyhorse]



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
But my question is... What happened?


In my opinion it was the initial set-up that was flawed.

What Happened?

The VETO.

That's what happened.

No one can get anything done because five countries have veto power. Those same five countries are permanent members of the Security Council. What they say goes. They have used and abused that power for their own personal interests and for maneuvering behind proxy-wars.

We either need UN reform or start all over.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   
The UN authorized the first Gulf War. The UN went into the Balkans to stop genocide. The UN inspected Iraq, found no weapons, and they were right. Just because the UN didn't authorize the invasion of Iraq by the US doesn't mean they are useless.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join