United Nations

[Godman]

Is United Nation a useless organization ?

With majors powers controlled by a handful of countries , this organization is unjust . Majors powers use their influence to dictate terms . Its nothing but a battle ground of major powers . Major counties use Veto power to make things go their way .

What will happen if other major countries leaves UN and go independent ? What will be its impact ?

When the UN gets into political issues it becomes a circus but WHO and UNESCO are pretty useful

 

[Levina]

Syria is a proof that UN is a useless organisation.

 

[dadeechi]

Useless. Obviously.

But why is India so desperate for a UNSC permanent seat?

Why is China so desperately hanging to that useless UNSC seat?

How about China giving away its useless UNSC seat to India?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Why is China so desperately hanging to that useless UNSC seat?

How about China giving away its useless UNSC seat to India?

Because India is our rival and we don't even want to give them useless things like the UNSC and NSG seat?

Though India's constant crying about these is pretty worth it.

 

[Syed Hasan Kazmi]

Most of those major nations have veto power so they do not leave. what ever the decisions the UN takes, veto powered nations can block when they are against their interests.

You should be worrying about India's permanent seat with veto power.

India will never get there. As Indian Sushma Swaraj clearly showed no respect to the UN decision of giving full right to Kashmiri's to choose there future. On the other hand she quoted as Kashmir a part of India which is not right. Under such circumstances India cannot be a permanent member with Veto Power.

There are many other reasons the above is one of the latest. You can only dream.

 

[Srinivas]

India will never get there. As Indian Sushma Swaraj clearly showed no respect to the UN decision of giving full right to Kashmiri's to choose there future. On the other hand she quoted as Kashmir a part of India which is not right. Under such circumstances India cannot be a permanent member with Veto Power.

There are many other reasons the above is one of the latest. You can only dream.

India went to UN but later Simla agreement between India and Pakistan is the basis for Kashmir problem.

According to Simla agreement both India and Pakistan agreed that it is a bilateral issue and there by UN has no role in this dispute.

India is a responsible country !

 

[Dr Parody]

Useless and this has been my opinion for a very long time. The UN has its moments and uses and its programs do help the world but the UNs power is highly restricted especially in the face of powerful nations. The organization is run under the concept of might is right and this has a negative effect on its entire working. One would think that the man that runs UN would be the most powerful man alive but he is weaker than most nations provincial members of assembly.

The super powers can do whatever they want, the economical powers can do whatever they want and all that's left are the enemies of super powers who bear the brunt of UN sanctions just bcz they didn't agree to the might of the super power.

I would say it again that its not all black and white and UN does good work as well like its AID programs and humanitarian programs but it cannot control those that have power.

The UN is very similar like it's predecessor the League of Nations. I do agree with the fact that it does not influence much power over any resolution. The only thing the UN is known for is its humanitarian successes; the same quality the League of nations had. When it some to dealing with the Great/Super powers, the UN is very weak on that platform; again the same problem which the LON had to face.

 

[Daniel Matthew]

Useless, Countries like china don't give a damn about UN

 

[Fenrir]

The UN is good for a lot of things, but solving conflicts isn't one of them and never had been, especially since it's usually the big players of the UN that are involved in said conflicts.

But the UN does a lot of good too. It helps with climate change, peacekeeping, refugee resettlement, national parks and cultural heritage protection, conflict mediation, even if it doesn't usually solve the conflicts member states at least try.

The World Bank, World Health Organization and UN Development Program have helped millions and countless countries. Sure when it comes to preventing conflicts its a load of garbage, but to say it's useless completely discounts the successes of its programs like the WHO or IMF.

Think about the UN as less like this:

And more like this:

but the alternatives are unpredictable and potentially a lot worse.

What would be the alternatives? Blocs like the SCO, SAARC, EU, or NATO? Each vying for dominance, preference, the support from other players? Or do we have other alternatives in mind such as a free for all on Earth?

Useless, Countries like china don't give a damn about UN

I'm sure more countries then China don't care. When's the last time the Americans gave two sh*ts about a resolution aimed at them? Or a program they didn't like and didn't want to be part of, like the ICC?

And let's not stop at China and the US, because I'm sure Russia isn't too keen on the UN either. Or India. Or for that matter most nations when in the UN's crosshairs.

Syria is a proof that UN is a useless organization.

Syria is proof the US and Russia don't give a damn, but the UN has helped immensely in conflict resolution, such as in Yugoslavia, Cuba during the Missile Crisis, Nicaragua, El Salvador and East Timor, and sure there are conflicts that are just too out of control, but that doesn't mean the UN doesn't make an effort.

Sometime sh*t's just too bad for anyone to do anything about, or the big powers are too invested in one party, such as in the Palestinian-Israeli saga, or Syria where there is no answer the UN could implement. Military intervention will only add fuel to the fire, diplomacy isn't possible with Russia and the US, Saudi Arabia and Iran, and Turkey and the Kurds backing different sides, and ISIS isn't a state actor that'll be swayed by the UN anyway. There's little that could be done when such parties are involved and the UN tried, on their directive Norway removed Syrian chemical weapons, on their directive a ceasefire was established, then broken repeatedly, on their directive aid was to flow into Syrian cities, but never did. The UN tried, but there's only so much it could do in a conflict as convoluted as the Syrian Civil War.

These pictures are from Norway's involvement in the OPCW, UN authorized via Security Counsel Resolution 2118, RECSYR mission:

Those two pictures are of Norwegian Special Forces belonging to MJK securing Syria's chemical weapons for transit.

And these two are of Norwegian Navy ship F313 Helge Ingstad escorting the cargo ship Taiko carrying Syria's chemical weapons to their final destination for disposal.

Norwegian personal were on Taiko itself during transit as well.

But there aren't many viable diplomatic approaches to solving a conflict of that nature and if you have actionable, realistic alternatives, I'd like to hear them.

There are successes there too and we shouldn't discount them.

The UN's certainly been more successful then anyone complaining of this forum, that's for sure and I hope we can at least both agree on that, if not other points.

Is United Nation a useless organization ?

You open a thread but don't give your take on the topic. Naughty Pandit!!

What's your side on the debate? It seems members think the UN is useless, or that it's useless as a conflict mediator but useful as a humanitarian organization.

And then there's me who recognizes it's valuable as both, as it has successes in both categories, but that the UN isn't the best or most appropriate tool for mediating conflicts then the world's big powers are involved, but that it still has a role to play (like the OPCW's Syria mission).

What side do you fit on and what's your reasoning behind your stance towards the UN?

 

[Nilgiri]

What would be the alternatives? Blocs like the SCO, SAARC, EU, or NATO? Each vying for dominance, preference, the support from other players? Or do we have other alternatives in mind such as a free for all on Earth?

I mean something like the UN, but different. Alternate universe UN basically

And lol @sweden + @iceland haha. "Perfectly good fermented fish"