The UN has failed: democracies should ignore it and act as needed

That's the case made by Rosemary Richter over at The Times.  It is a notion gathering impetus in the USA. 

Those in favour say that the UN is an inefficient organisation which lends false legitimacy to repressive regimes and has effectively collaborated with the worst of human activity by criminal bureaucratic delays and excuses.  What you believe to be right, they might say, does not become wrong because China says so.

Those against are often willing to concede that the UN is flawed, but point to the fact that at least there is a super-national organisation with some kind of moral legitimacy and weight, which can point to some successes, particularly in the humanitaran field - attempting to reform it, they would say, if far more productive - and acting outside its aegis like this will effectively destroy it.

What do you think?

Comments

[Tony Makara]

Looking beyond the collective security of the United Nations is a dangerous game to play and will isolate rogue regimes rather than keeping them under the watchful eye of the world.

Any body outside the UN led by the USA would serve US rather than global interests. The UN is not always perfect and at times has to hold its disgust and give a platform to unsavoury regimes. However it is better to do that than have these nations cut asunder and other nations meeting out their own punitive measures because it serves their particular geopolitical goals.

On the whole the UN has served the world well since its inception, though not always perfect any attempts to usurp the UN with other more subjective bodies would lead to far more conflict and a greater escalation of tensions worldwide.

[James, Swadlincote]

I think the UN is dangerously close to the "League of Nations" stage where, without some genuine purpose to it again it is under risk of breaking apart and plunging the world into another dark period. It has many benefits, but takes too long. Ban Ki Moon did promise regeneration of the UN, and this hasn't turned up so far. I think we may need to wait it out for a short while, but the problem is it tends to be used as little more than a Western condemning shop these days by various tinpot nations arond the world, or used for scathing and ubased attacks on states and national leaders.
At the very least it allows all the nation-states in the world speak with eachother easily. However at 192 states it is unweildy.

[Philip]

The UN might have a humanitarian role, but I think confidence in the UN as a guarantee of peace is misplaced and promises a false peace - this is proved by the fact that the UN legitimises repressive regimes. (The causes of wars lie within fallen human nature anyway.) It is the responsibility of nation states to protect themselves from aggressors and threats. Can UN "authority", or for that matter talk of "the will of the international community" be a way of binnding and shutting up those who dare to disagree with what is deemed the collective will?

Better for free nations to act together when necessary.

[Steevo]

"Can UN "authority", or for that matter talk of "the will of the international community" be a way of binnding and shutting up those who dare to disagree with what is deemed the collective will?"

Collective will is largely a farce. It is impossible with self-interest, rogue regimes given prominence, and a closed-door unaccountable elitism. The litany of UN corruption and abuse on an ongoing basis is unsurpassed by all but a few responsible for exporting terrorism, gross repression and mass murder.

[Gege]

In my opinion, setting up a league of democracies will make no difference. The reason why the UN is unable to intervene in certain situations is because certain powers are dominant in those spheres.The fact that you have created a new body will not change those facts.

This concept is also based on the flawed idea that democracies will always agree. Most democracies aligned with non-democracies in opposition to the Iraq war. They are also aligning in opposition to tough action on Iran.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

The UN is, by and large, a next to useless organisation. Unless the USA, Britain, NATO and mainly countries from the Anglo-sphere are involved in implementing its decisions nothing will be achieved. The usual obstructive suspects, following their own agenda, are are seldom visible on the ground when assistance is needed. It is a talking shop designed to obstruct the ethos and values of the West and to anchor it. Some of the countries serving on Human Rights committees are a joke. The West and the Anglo-sphere should ignore it whenever its interests are over- ruled by the decadent UN and its free loaders.

Just a few cases in point: the dodgy scientists employed by the UN producing the scam of global warming (it ain't happening), but it is designed to punish the West; Somalia, Mugabe, Burma. Without the involvement of the West nothing happens. The USA would be justified in withholding its large UN subsidy. It receives little thanks (the prats at the UN have just dispatched a free loader to examine racism and discrimination in America). The son of the last president of the UN was alleged to to be involved on the oil sanctions bust on Iraq.

All democratic nations of good will should form their own association and throw off the weight of millstone of the UN - leave it to swim in its self manufactured quagmire. Talk by all means, but ignore it when it conflicts with the interests of western civilization.

[Ken Stevens]

The UN is a talking shop, full stop.
As such, it serves a useful purpose at times. Unfortunately, too many people imbue it with some mystical superior quasi-judicial status.

Well, how many courts of law are you aware of that make a point of including criminals on its benches?! The main use for the UN is in its subordinate organisations performing mainly non-political functions, e.g. the International Civil Aviation Organisation and its maritime counterpart.

In the ultimate, nations have to work in their own best interests. Internationally, it is the Anglosphere that is potentially in our best interests, simply because of shared history.

[Tony Makara]

Do those who want a league of democracies not think that other such blocs will appear as a counterweight? Imagine a Sino/Russian bloc operating outside of the UN and imposing its version of justice around the world. What would happen when a US led league of democracies crossed paths with a powerful eastern bloc over energy supplies or if each side starts to accuse the other of hegemony? The UN provides the best framework for ensuring world peace between major powers. A league of democracies would not be allowed to impose its ideals around the world unchecked, its a naive idea, one built on using democracy as a front for NeoCon geopolitical objectives. Those who criticize the UN ought to think how much better the UN could work if major powers like the USA and Britain accepted the decisions of the UN. If major powers launch illegal wars then the UNs raison d'etre becomes completely undermined.

[powellite]

Tony, I admire your confidence but I think you've building your house on sand. The point about the UN and any international organisation is that it can only work on the lowest common denominator. When you try to get agreement from so many people, any decisions become meaningless.

The UN serves as a moral sop to those who imgaine that international relations can be idealistic. Unfortunately, the history of humanity to date shows that nations do not operate in anything other than self-interest.

The UN has no moral authority because it has no morals - it's an organisation, and no agreement could be made on what it believes in. People should stop pretending that it can and does.

[stephen hoffman]

much as i think the UN is flawed . it needs reforming not scrapping . If the UK left or if the US left , it would send out completely the wrong message to the rest of the world . It would make us look like a tinpot dictatorship because that's generally what countries that leave the UN are.

The UN could be a force for good if it was reformed .Unfortunately the UN people are too cosy in their positions and there is no appetite for reform , this needs to be changed significantly .

[Steevo]

"The UN has no moral authority because it has no morals - it's an organisation, and no agreement could be made on what it believes in. People should stop pretending that it can and does."

It claims the moral high ground in condemning Israel, sympathizing with terrorist entities and nation states, and being above accountability.

Here's one of the latest showing how good they work, from none other than the BBC, 2 days ago:

A 13-year-old girl, “Elizabeth” described to the BBC how 10 UN peacekeepers gang-raped her in a field near her Ivory Coast home.

“They grabbed me and threw me to the ground and they forced themselves on me... I tried to escape but there were 10 of them and I could do nothing,” she said. “I was terrified. Then they just left me there bleeding.”

[Tony Makara]

Powellite, any organization that seeks consensus and aims to be democratic has to appeal to a common denominator. Try to imagine how a post UN world would line up, or how major powers like Russia and China could remain in and use the UN without the USA and Britain? Claiming that they are the legitimate voice of world opinion.

If there was a league of democracies it would be built around the USA, UK, Israel, etc and an opposing bloc would consist of China, Russia, arabic powers and India too, don't forget that India was very close to Russia during the cold war and would side with an eastern bloc. The world would effectively be carved into two opposing blocs and the potential for conflict would be greater than it was during the cold war. China would almost certainly occupy Taiwan if it isn't accountable to the UN, Russia will look to 're-claim' certain regions, what would be the implications for Pakistani/Indian relations, particularly as Pakistan would most likely look to join the democracies bloc as a move against india.

Would EU states be supportive of a democracies bloc? Would France? What about Africa? China is already waging a form of economic hegemony in that region and speaks openly of Africa becoming a feeder continent to supply the Chinese economy with a mass market and raw materials.

Setting up a league of democracies would create more problems than most people imagine. Those nations outside of this proposed league will form an alternate bloc, and this will lead to a more confrontational atmosphere.

[powellite]

Thanks Tony, but please don't misunderstand me! I'm not arguing for a league of democracies at all, quite the reverse. It would necessarily have the same problems as the UN. I think internationalist institutions like the EU and UN which deal with political issues are all doomed to failure. They are incapable of dealing with global problems, and we should avoid setting them up in the first place.

[powellite]

Steevo, you hit the nail on the head! The irony is that it doesn't have any morals, but claims it does when justifying immoral behaviour. I think the charter of fundamental human rights shows how ridiculous the organisation is. Article 20 says that "No one may be compelled to belong to an association" - does that mean I can opt out of membership of the UN?

[Steevo]

But maybe, with their priorities finally in order as they know it, they will succeed, in one very great endeavor... having their rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance Doudou Diène take his fact-finding mission to the United States. Heh!

[George Hinton]

Corrupt, inept, ineffectual.
Peopled by third rate aparatchiks more, in the main, concerned with lining their own pockets.
The UN gives little nations the chance to play big politics, which they otherwise couldn't, to bite the hands that feed many of them, and to act as pawns for hire in the games of the superpowers.
Only once in its history has the UN acted true to its mandate, Korea, and then only because the Russkies staged a walkout and allowed an effective yes vote.
The UN has become a talking shop, with nations manouvering for the best deal, but failing to take effective and proper action.
Western nations should either ignore it, or force all to pay for it; no payee, no votee, no sayee.

[voice of truth]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

[Paul Marks]

"Reforming from within" does not tend to work with such organizations as the U.N. - it is rotten to the core.

The values and principles of the staff of all the major U.N. agencies are utterly hostile to those of the West.

Even such old things as the international Declaration of Human Rights (different from the U.N. Charter - but endorsed by the U.N.) is not as friendly as it seems at first glance. The document is written in such a way that it only seems to be pro freedom - the details pointing the other way. This should be no surprise as the British represenatives in the drawing up of this document where Harold Laski and E.H. Carr (both with a long record of support for collectivism).

Over time the U.N. has got worse and worse, but even its roots were corrupt from the start.

[Ewan Watt]

Since when did democracies - or any other state for that matter - care about what the UN thought when acting was in their fundamental interests? I can't see what would change.

[Lee Chamberlain]

To me this is relatively simple, I do see a a benefit in having an organisation like the UN, so we either replace it or reform it. Reforming it is simpler, as it already has acceptance as a world body.

We have to be realistic about its capabilities, but also have a goal of expanding those over time backed by stronger international laws.

If there is a role for groupings of democratic nations, its within the UN working for these objectives.

[Charles Tannock MEP]

The UN is all we've got and is intended as a final guarantor of peace and security globally in its Security Council. We ignore this role at our peril and recently the west has done so over Kosovo for instance opening a can of worms with precedents for every brekaway territory anywhere. I an deeply critical of the corruption, bureaucracy, abuse by peacekeepers against civilains including children etc but as a foreign policy specialist believe to withdraw from the UN would spell out a dangerous scenario in which dictators possibly armed with nuclear wepaons would be totally unchecked by the international community. Lets view the UN for what it is an imperfect buraeucarcy but the only institution of its kind which gives some fallback when the security climate deteriorates.
However I strongly support reviewing the UK's membership of some of its bloated agencies such as Food Agricultural Organisation which the President of Senegal described as worthless!

[Tony Makara]

Charles Tannock is right. We have to work with the existing framework and do what we can to ensure that it can be improved. I hope John McCain will recognize this and not push for new structures to exist independently of and thereby undermining the credibility of the UN. At a time when Russia and China are moving closer together and when the middle-east is still a powderkeg we need the collective security of the UN more than ever.

[snegchui]

Whilst shennanigans at the UN can make my blood boil, it is better than all the other options currently available. I have more time for the UN than I do the EU - on the grounds I prefer one world than one bloc.
But for the UN, like the EU , to improve its own standing it must tackle its own institutions and money disbursement. I refuse to believe that there are ideological reasons for not doing this. I would love to have seen the UN take a pre-eminent role in Tsunami Relief, but in the end it all fizzled out and you have a network of relief that is very variable in its delivery.
But one other major change needs to happen in the UN, and that is the question of sovereignity needs to be addressed and complied with by US, Russia and China included. The UN needs its own police and army to have equal status with national police and armies before it can effectively intervene to preserve human worth and dignity. Sitting in a bunker watching rockets fly over your head or bearing witness to massacres that you could but won't stop is demoralising and corrosive to all parties. If the big 3 did chime in, resources would also be much easier to obtain. Don't see it happening in the near future, but can live in hope.

[Roger the Right]

I remember in the 1980s when the prophets of doom reckoned nuclear war was inevitable (rather like the government funded scientists say global warming will destroy!) the CND members were almost to a man members of the local UN Association. It is so far left Stalin would be proud. It talks so much the EU is proud. It achieves? Almost nothing. Let the non democracies and apologists for the vile regimes around stew in their own poverty while the democracies which really care about the world form a new body with strict criteria for entry. Any hypocrites going to China for the Olympics?