The Future of United Nations

I am inspired to post this thread based on some of the user comments found here:



Maybe it's just because the current Canadian administration is highly hostile to the UN, but I get this feeling that the UN is slowly unraveling at the seams.

I believe it started with the unilateral invasion of Iraq. I remember that many Americans at the time called the UN an ineffectual and corrupt organization. Mantras that seem to be now parroted by the Conservative government and their voter base.

I honestly do not remember this kind of disrespect, if not outright hostility, to the UN before 2003. I remember visiting the UN headquarters in New York back in the 90's, and I remember feeling a tangible sense of pride from Americans that the UN headquarters were located in the United States.

What do you guys think?

Another article:

I think solarz that this is part of a much larger issue regarding global institutions generally and the relationship of emerging nations to them.

There is a conflict of narratives and it will depend on which of the narratives is actually "the truth".

Narrative 1

Global Institutions are an expression of the common will of all the nations of the world and the leadership of them will change as new powers emerge an take their rightful place at the helm and take over from older powers as they decline.

Narrative 2

Global Institutions are simply the instruments of power of the global hegemony and exist only to serve the interest of aforesaid global hegemony. As new powers emerge and power shifts from old to new, the new powers will create their own institutions to exercise their own power and the institutions of the declining powers will fall into disuse and irrelevance.

Which narrative do you believe is true and why?

SampanViking said:

I think solarz that this is part of a much larger issue regarding global institutions generally and the relationship of emerging nations to them.

There is a conflict of narratives and it will depend on which of the narratives is actually "the truth".

Narrative 1

Global Institutions are an expression of the common will of all the nations of the world and the leadership of them will change as new powers emerge an take their rightful place at the helm and take over from older powers as they decline.

Narrative 2

Global Institutions are simply the instruments of power of the global hegemony and exist only to serve the interest of aforesaid global hegemony. As new powers emerge and power shifts from old to new, the new powers will create their own institutions to exercise their own power and the institutions of the declining powers will fall into disuse and irrelevance.

Which narrative do you believe is true and why?

Click to expand...

The truth is of course a little bit of both. The UN, like all other organizations, has its own share of cliques and power struggles. That has always been true.

What worries me, however, is that the *idea* of a United Nation is now under attack.

Solarz this is Hardly the First Issue of the UN. The UN was one of the Most controversial agencies from it's birth and has Frankly been loaded with problems.
It Was created To stop Wars, And Well we have seen no Real major conflicts like World War 2 since it's birth there have been plenty of Smaller Bloody Affairs.
Peace keepers Sent in to places Like Bosnia can do little to stop the conflict. As the 400 Dutch in Srebrenica proved. And in some cases Often End up as Victims them selves like the Filipino peacekeepers. The most Galling incident has to be the Case Where the Head of a UN peacekeeping mission and his Guard were stripped naked of there Uniforms and Arms and left in the middle of nowhere by a group in Africa. There have also been Allegations of Peacekeepers Using Child Prostitutes.
The Agencies Them selves are troubled. In example Iran is under Technological sanctions by both the UN and US. A Agency of the UN Gifted and delivered Computers to Iran and North Korea. Oil For Food lined the pockets of both the Iraqi Regime and A number Of UN officials.
It also Has Some Questionable Placement of Member nations in positions of Power. Iran Sits on the United Nations Women Rights Commission. All of this is Just the tip of One Dirty Dirty Ice berg.
Canada Recently stopped giving money to the UN Desertification program because of the sum given only pennies on the Dollar actually ended up being used by the program.

There is no question that the UN has a very tough job. Do not dismiss the fact that there has been very few major wars since it's conception. Remember that the Korean War happened in part because the USSR boycotted the UN.

The UN has a lot of agencies, but its true mandate is to prevent wars between major powers. Hence the veto powers wielded by the permanent security council. However, this mandate can only be implemented if member nations believed in it. Due to international relations, the hostility of even middling powers like Canada can have an effect on the attitude of major powers.

In short, the more frayed the UN becomes, the more risk we run of a 3rd world war.

The veto power is restricted to the security council and then the key permanent members only. The US, Russia , China , UK, and France. This core of the UN has I agree been one of the factors that has prevented a active conflict between the major powers. (I think it needs a update) Well the UNSC has been a tool to try and keep the peace its also had its failing look at Syria and the Russian Afganistan invasion. Bloody conflicts that the UNSC could do little to stop.
Mind you the main UN floor is hardly blood free either. Take the recent Palistinian "victory" at first glance it should have been a great step right I mean hell half the members hear were jumping for joy. Thing is it actually ended up causing more problems for the Palistinian people as by alowing the change in status the UN stopped a large amount of aid. The political leadership may have rejoiced well the people ended up suffering.
Dont get me wrong the UN has its place, and a sure sign that a organisation is doing something right is when its cause for debate and Contravercy. But the UN needs a lot of cleaning the original goals of the agency do not match what it has become.

Chinese netizens likes to jokingly refer to the 5 permanent members of the UN as the worlds five don.

A semblance of world order is held in place by them through dealings and compromises between them.

They also commented how very similar geopolitics plays out like politics between mafia factions. There are areas of influence, card trading and bargaining, unspoken rules to be observed, and steps taken to limit outbreaks of hostilities so they don't get out of control.

Occasionally they may agree together to sacrifice one of the underlings for their mutual benefit, even if on the surface that dude may be closer to one of the other dons.

I'm very interested in this topic, as I had considered a career as civil servant for international politics of either UN, Canada, or HK.
Unfortunately all 3 upset me so much at this point:

Canada: DFAIT (Foreign Ministry) - Thanks to Harper, going in seemed pointless for now, and may not even be possible, since he's cutting budgets left and right. Baird himself is a pitbull of Harper. I wanted to enter DFAIT both for financial security and for promoting Canadian humanitarian interests. This government left me nothing to go in for.

Hong Kong: ICAC's recent scandal left me distraught if the organization is still worthy for me to consider. Regardless, I still held some hopes because I believe the organization overall is still within its core

UN: UNPKO...UN does get stuff done, but like you guys all said, it's losing its ground. I believe the statures of UN is ultimately very important, because its the pillar of the international community all coming in together. No matter how troubled it is, it remaining standing represents a certain world order still somehow in place.. once again I want to work there for humanitarian causes, but how far can things go?

I will make some more constructive contributions in my next post in here, but for now I must vent my frustration. WHO DA HELL PUT HARPER IN OFFICE??? HATED THAT GUY TO THE GUTS. AND CAN SOMEONE TELL ME HOW MUCH LONGER IS HE IN OFFICE FOR??

airsuperiority said:

I will make some more constructive contributions in my next post in here, but for now I must vent my frustration. WHO DA HELL PUT HARPER IN OFFICE??? HATED THAT GUY TO THE GUTS. AND CAN SOMEONE TELL ME HOW MUCH LONGER IS HE IN OFFICE FOR??

Click to expand...

That would be 2015 at the latest. I don't think he's going to stand a chance against Justin Trudeau. So don't give up your dreams just yet!

In any case, back on topic, there is no doubt that some member nations have more influence than others. Even discounting the Big Five, more powerful states have more weight. It gets worrisome when the more influential members of the UN start talking about its obsolescence.

I would argue that the UN established a "World Order" post-WW2, and that the current problems stems from the fact that this order is being challenged and shifted. It is hard to say if the UN can survive this shift.

Solarz their is on such thing as a sure bet in politics.
Now then. You do to a degree have a point about changing order but the problems with the UN are more then just who is sitting where. Its first that the agency has expanded its self so broadly with limited oversight. When the sanctions imposed by members and the agency its self are violated by that agency one should be brought to account for such.
It also has issues of if their actions have bite. Sanction and UN agreements are about as binding as those of the League of Nations and we should all remember how successful that was. They send Peace keepers and then when trouble starts all they can do is sit and watch or worse become victims themselves. I mean has any one bothered to keep count of the number of times UN Peacekeepers have been taken prisoner? My last count was around a dozen. Then their are Nations like North Korea and Iran who openly violate sanction of the UN. Even better Iran openly denies request of inspection and what happens? Iran is alowed a seat on the IAEA board. Its like having defendant on his own jury!