‘Not something to celebrate': As it turns 80 and faces dwindling global clout, can the UN survive？
-
The United Nations, a collaborative global dream built into reality out of the ashes of World War II, marks its 80th anniversary this month. There’s little to celebrate.
Its clout on the world stage is diminished. Facing major funding cuts from the United States and others, it has been forced to shed jobs and start tackling long-delayed reforms. Its longtime credo of “multilateralism” is under siege. Its most powerful body, the Security Council, has been blocked from taking action to end the two major wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
And as the latest conflict between Israel, Iran and the United States flared, it watched from the sidelines.
Four generations after its founding, as it tries to chart a new path for its future, a question hangs over the institution and the nearly 150,000 people it employs and oversees: Can the United Nations remain relevant in an increasingly contentious and fragmented world?
The UN has largely worked as intended, even now. It's purpose is to allow the world powers to peacefully interact with each other and control everyone else.
-
It'll probably reform under a different name in 5-10 year's time.
I've always been partial to restarting the League of Nations, which notably never had the United States anyway... sounds familiar.
-
I've always been partial to restarting the League of Nations, which notably never had the United States anyway... sounds familiar.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the League of Nations largely the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson, US president during WW1?
It was structurally different to the UN we know today, but it was still pushed forward by a US president.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the League of Nations largely the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson, US president during WW1?
It was structurally different to the UN we know today, but it was still pushed forward by a US president.
It needs to re-form as something different. No state should have veto power, no state that bullies others, internally or externally should be on the security or human rights councils, no state that isn't signatory to charters should get any vote. States that refused to arrest on warrants should have membership revoked. Probably more but those would be good starting points.
-
I heard America is trying get the American Idol judge system to replace it but they are waiting to get the final confirmation from Coca Cola.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I’m so fucking offended by this comment. You think that America is just a bunch of goddam capitalism that works its way into every nook and cranny of politics that the US is in? We’re just an entertainment pumping machine for your entertainment? No. We are a capitalist entertainment empire and you better fucking LOVE it because it would all be sponsored by McDonald’s and not Coca Cola.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the League of Nations largely the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson, US president during WW1?
It was structurally different to the UN we know today, but it was still pushed forward by a US president.
wasn’t the League of Nations largely the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson, US president during WW1?
Yes it was, quite ironic that the US never became a part of it right? But they've always been like that. I can't figure out why anyone would rely on an agreement with them when every 4 years they switch from Jekyll to Hyde, do an about face and throw you to the wolves. They're useful allies when they want to be useful, but I wouldn't rely on them or trust any agreement with them any further than I can throw it. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
-
It needs to re-form as something different. No state should have veto power, no state that bullies others, internally or externally should be on the security or human rights councils, no state that isn't signatory to charters should get any vote. States that refused to arrest on warrants should have membership revoked. Probably more but those would be good starting points.
There could be value in such an association, but it wouldn't replace the UN, far from it.
What's your proposing is akin to the ICC, where willing states join and agree to comply with its rulings.
The UN serves as a forum for all countries of the world. If no privileges were given to the world's most powerful countries, they might just leave it, severaly reducing its use in the process.
-
There could be value in such an association, but it wouldn't replace the UN, far from it.
What's your proposing is akin to the ICC, where willing states join and agree to comply with its rulings.
The UN serves as a forum for all countries of the world. If no privileges were given to the world's most powerful countries, they might just leave it, severaly reducing its use in the process.
The UN serves as a forum for all countries of the world. If no privileges were given to the world's most powerful countries, they might just leave it, severaly reducing its use in the process.
And? You can see powerful countries abusing veto powers and that in no way should be on the human rights councils. If these countries refuse to uphold global standards, they're not in, and can be prosecuted.
-
The UN serves as a forum for all countries of the world. If no privileges were given to the world's most powerful countries, they might just leave it, severaly reducing its use in the process.
And? You can see powerful countries abusing veto powers and that in no way should be on the human rights councils. If these countries refuse to uphold global standards, they're not in, and can be prosecuted.
I don't think a membre of the security council csn really "abuse" veto power. What do you think would happen if they couldn't?
Again, I'd like to say that there can be value in such an association. Just as I see value in associations like ICC and NATO. They're just not a forum to solve disputes and that's OK.
-
wasn’t the League of Nations largely the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson, US president during WW1?
Yes it was, quite ironic that the US never became a part of it right? But they've always been like that. I can't figure out why anyone would rely on an agreement with them when every 4 years they switch from Jekyll to Hyde, do an about face and throw you to the wolves. They're useful allies when they want to be useful, but I wouldn't rely on them or trust any agreement with them any further than I can throw it. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
I wouldn't rely on them or trust any agreement with them any further than I can throw it.
Idk....I can throw a balled up piece of paper pretty far...and frankly I would trust any agreement significantly less than I can throw that....
-
The UN has largely worked as intended, even now. It's purpose is to allow the world powers to peacefully interact with each other and control everyone else.
I'd disagree. The world powers are more at risk of direct conflict than the founding empires hoped. Nationalism, militarism, and capitalism induced pain make major wars that fuck shit up more likely.
-
The United Nations, a collaborative global dream built into reality out of the ashes of World War II, marks its 80th anniversary this month. There’s little to celebrate.
Its clout on the world stage is diminished. Facing major funding cuts from the United States and others, it has been forced to shed jobs and start tackling long-delayed reforms. Its longtime credo of “multilateralism” is under siege. Its most powerful body, the Security Council, has been blocked from taking action to end the two major wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
And as the latest conflict between Israel, Iran and the United States flared, it watched from the sidelines.
Four generations after its founding, as it tries to chart a new path for its future, a question hangs over the institution and the nearly 150,000 people it employs and oversees: Can the United Nations remain relevant in an increasingly contentious and fragmented world?
The security council permanent member veto process doomed it from the start.
-
I'd disagree. The world powers are more at risk of direct conflict than the founding empires hoped. Nationalism, militarism, and capitalism induced pain make major wars that fuck shit up more likely.
There hasn't been direct conflict between powers since it was created, so I'd say you're wrong. Think we're far more tense in the cold war era than now.
-
There hasn't been direct conflict between powers since it was created, so I'd say you're wrong. Think we're far more tense in the cold war era than now.
We're seeing empires across the board vying for power now that the fascist US has abandoned its former soft power strategy. There is trouble brewing on so many fronts in this multipolar world, which means more chances for one of the bigger nations to enter a devastating war. It's not just 2 powers fighting for dominance, but dozens of others looking to fight, with about a third of them having nukes.
