h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Is the UN defunct? Is it full of namby-pamby do-gooders who don't have the guts to stand up to certain people/governments? Or are they trying to be diplomatic? Or are they just a floppy arm of the US?

The UN is an attempt at confederate government... that is, it tries to broker deals among sovereign states for the common good and common defense.

This form of government was tried three times in US history. Twice it failed. The third time it wasn't doing too well, but didn't stick around long enough to be really evaluated.

The reason a confederate government fails is because its decrees have no teeth. The states can ignore them without repercussions most of the time. The UN has a very limited ability to enforce its own resolutions. It has to ask the member states to do the enforcing, and they can always say no.

And, of course, it deadlocks. It's almost impossible to get anything out of the UN with any real meaning, because so many individual states can block it. And they all have their own private agendas.

Besides that, the UN is a joke. Consider the reputations of the governments assigned to these positions:

Security Council presidency for next year: Syria... the guys violating Security Council mandates keeping weapons out of Iraq.
Disarmament Committee chair: Before last year, it was scheduled to be Iraq.... the guys refusing to cooperate with SC disarmament resolutions were going to be responsible for making sure others do?
Human Rights chair: Libya... that's right, former terrorist Ghaddafi is looking out for human rights.

These appointments just defy logic.

What's the alternative to the UN?

A global, federal government.

And now you can somewhat see what those nutters in the US who arm themselves and watch for black helicopters are all about. In the US, a confederate government naturally gave way to a strong federal government when its weaknesses were exposed. They think they see the same thing playing out again.

Yes, compared to any government you can think of the UN is pretty powerless. This is why I don't consider it a kind of government at all. I can see why some might draw a parallel with a confederate US, but there are some pretty major differences:

For the UN/World, there aren't any foreigners (like the English) to unite against. (Perhaps if Extra Terrestrials turn up this will change.)

The UN has a lot of members who have been fighting wars against each other as long as they have existed. The trust necessary to enter a federal union with such enemies won't exist for centuries. The new world colonies by contrast were in more or less the same situation as each other with respect to each other and Great Britain.

The new world colonies were considerably more equal in power and culture than the members of the UN have ever been. (Great inequality makes federation difficult for both the weak and the strong.)

Etc...


The UN is not a poor world government. There is no world government. This is why there is no justice or rule of law between nations. The fact that the absence of government is easily mistakeable for a very bad government is something that US Libertarians should take note of.


But if we judge the UN not by the standards of a government, but as a forum for nations to come together, talk, and to try to maintain peace, it does pretty well. Peacekeeping forces for example are used, and they save many lives. Without some co-ordination and stamp of authority from the UN, we would all be wringing our hands, and our governments, perceiving little self interest would be doing nothing.

You don't really believe Delaware or Rhode Island enjoyed as much power or precedence as Virginia, New York, or Pennsylvania, do you?

If the UN were solely intended to be a forum for discussion and accord, it would not pass resolutions that were punitive in nature, it would not pay people to ensure those resolutions were being adhered to, and it would not ask member states to provide the forces to enforce them. The acts the UN Security Council have undertaken in recent history are the acts of a government, and one whose model fits all too neatly with that of the Second Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation.

Obviously I was talking about degrees of inequality, hence the use of the word "more".

But we're arguing about the meaning of the word government here, which is a pretty pointless activity. If the Security Council had its own forces to implement its resolutions rather than relying on voluntary contributions from its members, then I guess the word government as I understand it would reasonably apply to the Security Council. By all means stick to your definition if you prefer.

"Besides that, the UN is a joke. Consider the reputations of the governments assigned to these positions:"

For once I have to agree with something that blatherskite has said. The US has used it's veto, what, 76 times.

One site after about 10 seconds of searching
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

Take away veto and untie the hands of the UN. Lest we have to wait for the EU reaction force to be built because we know the has to be some balance to the US self-interest force

It's a wonder anything gets done.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2828985.stm
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/07/icc070302.htm
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0312-Veto.html

The UN's problem is not that it is "weak" or "namby pamby" it is that it will not take decisive action without widespread global consent and, since most nations simply look out for their own interests, any such action will inevibaly be undermined.

I disagree with the idea that the UN should be a "global government". I think it's role is as a global forum for dealing with the world's problems and I think some sort of international law is inevitable in this. I don't think this is global government any more than a law against genocide constitutes global government.

"These appointments just defy logic."

In the Northern Ireland assembly, a former IRA terrorist ended up being Minister for Education.

Good for Satirists, if no one else.

"since most nations simply look out for their own interests, any such action will inevibaly be undermined." - it's not most nations. It's a small number of nations. Just ask anhaga or one of the other canadian researchers for official links.

The latest barrage against the UN is for not acting as a US puppet. It's that simple.

Another thing that's simeple. Reduce the decision makers and you dilute democracy.

Thanks for the invite, Apparition, but I really don't see much point in letting myself get dragged into this silliness. I'll be quick and then I'll leave.

The sole reason for some of the noticable ineffectivnesses of the UN of late has been the Bush administration's demand that the world toe its line. As for the innevitable failure of Confederation, the rumours of Canada's demise are grotesquely exagerated.

Before anyone looking at the world through the blinkered view from America should be saying anything about the failures of the UN, they should take a look at the failures of their own little state, which is being so rapidly and easily dismantled by the man in the White House. From the place I'm sitting, the UN seems the most successful thing since the wheel compared to the USA.

Bye now

quite true, the UN has recently lost its credibility in the world because of Bush and his wish to create an Empire without any knowledge or consideration of the world history; As long as he or someone with the same way of thinking will be deciding things of this gravity :the world will stay in great danger.

I think the recent example of the US choking down some serious humble pie at the UN shows that this institution is more than relevant.

Ste