The Let's Rant and Rave about the UN Thread

[dteowner]

Rather than pollute other threads with my near-daily spotlight on the utter failure of this organization at its stated function, I figured I'd just start a new thread. I thought the reference to Oblivion was particularly appropriate on far too many levels. This will give all you apologists a place to focus as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090420/ap_on_re_eu/un_un_racism_conference_22

Boy, we sure talked that one out. Let's hear it for talkie talkie!

 

[Prime Junta]

The best I can do at this time is quote that pinko defeatist, Winston Churchill: "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."

Oh, and, Ahmadinejad is a tool.

My main problem with your attitude toward the UN is that you're awfully jaundiced about it. Your attitude appears to be that if they don't succeed in EVERYTHING they try RIGHT NOW, that means that they're abject failures and complete waste of oxygen. Sure, they fail in a lot of things they try; and they tread water on a lot of others. But the UN also does manage to stave off conflicts every once in a while, and has a pretty good track record at stabilizing things after conflicts. I won't fault them for trying to solve problems that may be insoluble -- since they certainly won't get solved if nobody even tries.

What you also appear to fail to appreciate is that what you see as UN obstructionism to America's use of power for Entirely Legitimate Purposes (tm) is also the very same thing that reins in all kinds of thoroughly nasty people all the time. How may wars has North Korea started lately? Iran? Libya? Do you really think the UNIFIL in Lebanon has no stabilizing effect on the highly volatile areas where it operates? What about the very concrete work UNESCO and UNICEF have been doing for educational and sanitational standards in third-world countries?

If you only look at the failures and rationalize away the successes as happenstance, extraneous circumstances, or not really successes at all, you can make anything look like the Evil Empire.

 

[Rithrandil]

I think the UN does a (fairly) good job in terms of organizing international effort towards specific humanitarian crises. In terms of peacekeeping, the only examples I can think of where they've been pretty successful have been their mission along the Israeli-Egyptian border, the things they've done in East Timor, and maybe UNIFIL.

But in many, many areas it is clearly deficient. Rwanda, Somalia, Darfur, etc have all happened on the UN's watch (granted, on the US's as well, but it's not our stated purpose to stop everything). Things like the Genocide convention are laughable at best, criminal at worst - "Acts of genocide" and "genocide" is a pretty poor distinction. You have countries like Libya and China on the UNHRC, etc. And I think giving the UN credit for Korea, Iran, and Libya not overtly attacking anyone lately is a pretty far stretch. It's not like it's going to be blue helmets in the trenches at the DMZ if the DPRK decides to do anything, or the UN fighting in the Strait of Hormuz if Iran decides it wants to attack someone. I don't really think the threat of a UN intervention gives anyone pause, since the only actual UN armed intervention I am aware of was way back in the Korean War - and even then, most of the forces were ROK or US troops, with about 100k Commonwealth troops.

 

[Ubereil]

If you only look at the failures and rationalize away the successes as happenstance, extraneous circumstances, or not really successes at all, you can make anything look like the Evil Empire.

::Übereil saves this quote in his quotes.txt file::

 

[Prime Junta]

I think the UN does a (fairly) good job in terms of organizing international effort towards specific humanitarian crises. In terms of peacekeeping, the only examples I can think of where they've been pretty successful have been their mission along the Israeli-Egyptian border, the things they've done in East Timor, and maybe UNIFIL.

Off the top of my head, I'd add Cyprus, Angola, and Guatemala. There are plenty more if you look into them. Not all of them are unqualified successes, but in even a great many of the "failures" the UN presence has clearly helped rather than hurt things.

But in many, many areas it is clearly deficient. Rwanda, Somalia, Darfur, etc have all happened on the UN's watch (granted, on the US's as well, but it's not our stated purpose to stop everything). Things like the Genocide convention are laughable at best, criminal at worst - "Acts of genocide" and "genocide" is a pretty poor distinction.

I agree -- and that's because the UN doesn't have any independent authority of its own. It can only do what the Security Council permanent members want it to do, and that if it's assigned sufficient resources. What's more, the UN was set up to prevent conflicts between classical (nation-)states from escalating into armed conflict; things like Rwanda, Somalia, and Darfur were cases of mayhem happening within a single country. The UN doesn't have any good mechanisms in place to handle that sort of situation to start with, so it's hardly a surprise that it's not very effective at handling them. Sort of the way armies aren't very good at doing police work, nor police forces good at fighting wars.

You have countries like Libya and China on the UNHRC, etc. And I think giving the UN credit for Korea, Iran, and Libya not overtly attacking anyone lately is a pretty far stretch. It's not like it's going to be blue helmets in the trenches at the DMZ if the DPRK decides to do anything, or the UN fighting in the Strait of Hormuz if Iran decides it wants to attack someone. I don't really think the threat of a UN intervention gives anyone pause, since the only actual UN armed intervention I am aware of was way back in the Korean War - and even then, most of the forces were ROK or US troops, with about 100k Commonwealth troops.

The Gulf War of 1991 was a UN operation.

Look at it this way:

(1) How many offensive wars between (nation-)states have been started since the UN was founded?
(2) What has been the UN response in each case?
(3) What was the outcome?

I believe that if you did this, you'd find that the UN's track record isn't half bad -- nowhere near perfect, mind, but a far cry from "a complete waste of oxygen."

From where I'm at, the world needs some kind of international forum for global jaw-jaw that can have something approaching the moral authority of "world public opinion." It's bound to be messy, inefficient, occasionally corrupt -- much like democracies are messy and inefficient compared to well-run dictatorships. International relations are by nature anarchic, but I don't see how having something like the UN to give some semblance of structure to the anarchy makes things worse. It's not like the cost is an intolerable burden, or something.

 

[magerette]

Any feeling on whether the UN ought to weigh in on the Somalian piracy situation? News blasts this morning are all about the Canucks(NATO) catching a bunch of fellows attempting a hijack, disarming them and letting them go because there's no easy way to try them, apparently. Seems like a situation where there needs some international accord. Or is it strictly a NATO issue?

 

[Prime Junta]

Again, that's not really something the UN was built to handle, the high seas being the high seas. I can't see how it would hurt to organize the operation under UN auspices, though. There's really very little disagreement on legitimacy here -- clearly hijacking ships for ransom isn't kosher, whatever the circumstances pushing the pirates to do that may be.

 

[Rithrandil]

Off the top of my head, I'd add Cyprus, Angola, and Guatemala. There are plenty more if you look into them. Not all of them are unqualified successes, but in even a great many of the "failures" the UN presence has clearly helped rather than hurt things.

Thanks for those - I forgot about Cyprus and wasn't aware of Angola and Guatemala. I probably should have put a little note at the end of my post saying I don't think the UN is a bad thing. I'm probably half-way between you and DTE on this. I think the UN does some good, it does some bad, but is largely ineffective because of various issues (including things you explain below.

I agree -- and that's because the UN doesn't have any independent authority of its own. It can only do what the Security Council permanent members want it to do, and that if it's assigned sufficient resources. What's more, the UN was set up to prevent conflicts between classical (nation-)states from escalating into armed conflict; things like Rwanda, Somalia, and Darfur were cases of mayhem happening within a single country. The UN doesn't have any good mechanisms in place to handle that sort of situation to start with, so it's hardly a surprise that it's not very effective at handling them. Sort of the way armies aren't very good at doing police work, nor police forces good at fighting wars.

Agreed - I know there was some consideration of this because of the UN genocide convention which *requires* states intervene in case of a genocide, but it's largely been ignored and no one really wants to bother enforcing it.

The Gulf War of 1991 was a UN operation.

Ah, forgot about that.

Look at it this way:

(1) How many offensive wars between (nation-)states have been started since the UN was founded?
(2) What has been the UN response in each case?
(3) What was the outcome?

[/quote]
I got tired of counting around 1965 or so, because as we both know, there are a lot of things that may or may not count on that list. I'll post the ones I came up with, though:
1) Indo-Pakistan war of 1947 - UN managed to arrange a ceasefire at the end of 1948, resulted in Pakistan controlling 2/5ths of Kashmir and India controlling the rest. (3300 dead)
2) Arab-Israeli War '48 - multiple UN attempts at a ceasefire; resulted in Israel signed Armistices in 1949 and further conflicts later on (12k-19k dead)
3) Korean War, 1950-1953- UN intervention; resulted in a stalemate/return to status-quo. (2.67 million dead)
4) PLA invasion of Tibet, 1950-1951 - No UN response; Tibet is still occupied today. (85k dead)
5) Vietnam War, 1959-1975 - No UN intervention; Vietnam became communist. (5.1 million dead)
6) Sino-Indian War, 1962 - No UN intervention, China established the borders it desired (4,588 dead)
7) Indonesia-Malaysia war, 1962-1966 - No UN intervention, status quo achieved (1k dead)
8) The Sand War (Algeria/Morocco), 1963 - No UN intervention, border closings as a result (unknown number dead)
9) Indo Pakistani War of 1965 - UN ceasefire reached, status quo achieved (11k-15k dead)

I believe that if you did this, you'd find that the UN's track record isn't half bad -- nowhere near perfect, mind, but a far cry from "a complete waste of oxygen."

I don't think they have a good track record but that doesn't mean I want them to stop trying, either.

From where I'm at, the world needs some kind of international forum for global jaw-jaw that can have something approaching the moral authority of "world public opinion." It's bound to be messy, inefficient, occasionally corrupt -- much like democracies are messy and inefficient compared to well-run dictatorships. International relations are by nature anarchic, but I don't see how having something like the UN to give some semblance of structure to the anarchy makes things worse. It's not like the cost is an intolerable burden, or something.

I agree, I'm in favor of the UN sticking around (because we have no real way of gauging how many conflicts may have happened if it didn't exist at all). I don't really buy into the whole Wilsonian Idealist Collective Security idea, but I figure if the UN exists as one more step (even if it's a small one) between "no fighting is happening" to "complete Armageddon", then cool.

And I also think it does a relatively decent job of humanitarian work, so I hope it doesn't stop.

 

[dteowner]

We really need to peel the UN's relief work out of the discussion, though. Those functions can be, and are, done equally well or better by other charitable organizations, namely the Red Cross. Rather than give $10 to the UN, see $5 of it buying oxygen tanks for the assembly and $5 buying food/meds for the Africans, why not give that same $10 to the Red Cross and see somewhere on the order of $9 buying food/meds? The Red Cross is already "there" for many of the places in need, so it's not like you've got a lot of logistics spending to do to deliver "former UN" services.

About the only relief-ish function they shepherd that can't really be "busted out" is the IMF. Maybe the World Court, if it wasn't a laughingstock. So shut down that big CO2 producing building in NYC and open a much, much smaller one in Switzerland with "IMF-- Under New Management" on the shingle out front and you're good to go.

Now, let's talk about Gulf War 1. I seem to remember that being labelled as Bush Sr.'s War when certain individuals were attempting to undercut Dubya's rationale for taking out Saddam. Now, all of a sudden, it's a UN special? If a US-initiated and US-led campaign that included UN participation is to be labelled a UN victory, then what are we to do about Iraq? Do you really feel good about calling that a UN campaign now, cuz that's a slightly different song than I seem to remember.

Finally, a note on Rith's list. I seem to notice a trend where the only times the UN actually puts boots on the ground is if the US is leading the charge. I similarly notice that the vast majority of the time, the UN doesn't do jack. Talkie talkie, eh?

 

[Prime Junta]

Now, let's talk about Gulf War 1. I seem to remember that being labelled as Bush Sr.'s War when certain individuals were attempting to undercut Dubya's rationale for taking out Saddam. Now, all of a sudden, it's a UN special? If a US-initiated and US-led campaign that included UN participation is to be labelled a UN victory, then what are we to do about Iraq? Do you really feel good about calling that a UN campaign now, cuz that's a slightly different song than I seem to remember.

It's both, of course -- a US-led, US-initiated campaign that was fought under UN authorization and UN auspices. But it was arguably more of a UN operation than the Korean War, which only got UN authorization because the USSR had walked out of the Security Council.

Finally, a note on Rith's list. I seem to notice a trend where the only times the UN actually puts boots on the ground is if the US is leading the charge. I similarly notice that the vast majority of the time, the UN doesn't do jack. Talkie talkie, eh?

Why do you reckon that is, dte?

Specifically, to paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions does the UN command?

Edit: I'm still somewhat puzzled by your enormous hostility to the UN. I mean sure, it's a hell of a long way from perfect, but do you really think the world would be better off without it? If so, why? What harm, exactly, does it do?

 

[dteowner]

I don't really think the threat of a UN intervention gives anyone pause, since the only actual UN armed intervention I am aware of was way back in the Korean War

Was Bosnia UN or solely NATO? The Euros actually got excited about that one since it was in their back yard, so I could see the UN not being its usual roadblock to anything.

 

[dteowner]

Why do you reckon that is, dte?

Specifically, to paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions does the UN command?

Edit: I'm still somewhat puzzled by your enormous hostility to the UN. I mean sure, it's a hell of a long way from perfect, but do you really think the world would be better off without it? If so, why? What harm, exactly, does it do?

Exactly the problem! They've got no way to put any teeth to anything (we still disagree on the effectiveness of UN sanctions, in the rare instances they actually get imposed), which makes all their talkie talkie largely pointless. You don't need a UN to marshal "international pressure"--every tinpot country in the world has thousands of spokesmen that get paid to find some AP grunt to get their quote out to the world. If you want to give DPRK a "global frownie face" for firing a missle, you don't need the UN to do that. There's half a million ambassadors (nation-type, not UN-type) with nothing better to do than wag a finger over caviar and wine. It's no less effective.

So, in the net, yes they do harm. Their harm is false hope. Folks like you (not picking on you personally) believe in them and expect them to fix or at least help situations that they cannot, have not, and will not ever fix. You're paying for the privilege of spinning your wheels when there's real need for that money. You've tossed out their budget number a few times. Sure, it's a sliver of Obama's Big Spend, but imagine the good the Red Cross (and similar organizations) could do with $20Bn that's being spent to give Ahmad-whatever a forum for a bunch of us to walk out of while he's talking.

And when the next Saddam takes a Kuwait vacation, we won't have to hope that "Saddam Redux" isn't somehow allied with one of the Security Council veto-holders, since that's a virtual guarantee nothing will get done. (and you could legitimately put Israel in that slot, since the US steadfastly shoots down any attempt to spank them when they go apeshit)

 

[Prime Junta]

So, in the net, yes they do harm. Their harm is false hope. Folks like you (not picking on you personally) believe in them and expect them to fix or at least help situations that they cannot, have not, and will not ever fix.

This, dte, appears to be another favorite strawman of yours -- whether it's the UN or Obama. You don't appear to be able to accept that most of us realize that things are imperfect; we don't expect whatever party or politician or group we support to immediately fix every evil in the world. It's usually a choice between flawed alternatives and/or trying to improve the ones we're dealing with.

 

[dteowner]

You're pissing away billions that could be better/more effectively spent for real goodness in the world. The humanitarian aspect is wasteful and that hurts the people it's supposed to help. The political aspect is an abject failure by any measure. Your "flawed alternative" is a bike with triangular stone tires when there's a perfectly good Bucati sitting right there. It's not being reasonable and understanding to live with that bike--it's wasteful and counterproductive because it's not the only alternative you have.

 

[Prime Junta]

I disagree with you about that, dte, on all counts -- the UN isn't as inefficient on a bang-per-buck level as you make it out to be, nor do I believe that traditional great-power multilateral diplomacy would be a more effective substitute for the General Assembly and the Security Council. The period since the UN was founded has been almost unique in world history in that peace has been the norm and war the exception -- at almost every time and place before, the converse was true. I don't think that's all coincidence. (Nor do I think it's all due to the UN -- rather, the UN is an expression of the kind of thing that created this highly unusual situation.)

 

[dteowner]

The period since the UN was founded has been almost unique in world history in that peace has been the norm and war the exception -- at almost every time and place before, the converse was true. I don't think that's all coincidence. (Nor do I think it's all due to the UN -- rather, the UN is an expression of the kind of thing that created this highly unusual situation.)

Huh? Unless you define "peace" as "not a world war", that just doesn't hold water. Israel by itself pretty well covers 1947 to current times for ongoing violence. I just might be spurred to research here, but I'd bet the bare minimum for any of the last 50 years would be 3 active conflicts and most would probably be significantly higher. I expect that's no better than Pax Romana, which (as you've pointed out) wasn't exactly Pax. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for UN stewardship.

 

[Prime Junta]

Huh? Unless you define "peace" as "not a world war", that just doesn't hold water. Israel by itself pretty well covers 1947 to current times for ongoing violence. I just might be spurred to research here, but I'd bet the bare minimum for any of the last 50 years would be 3 active conflicts and most would probably be significantly higher. I expect that's no better than Pax Romana, which (as you've pointed out) wasn't exactly Pax. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for UN stewardship.

Nope, that's not what I meant. I meant that over this period, most people, most of the time, have been at peace rather than at war. This is in stark contrast to just about any period of time, including the Pax Romana.

 

[dteowner]

India's been in a few dustups. That's 1/7 to 1/6 of the global population affected right there. America has been in several, some big some small (from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq to Grenada and so forth) so that's ~5% of the global population in one shot. If we count China-Tibet and China-India, that covers another 15% of the global population. USSR? Yep, lots of shooting there over quite a few years. I'd have to check their population numbers, but it can't be much smaller than the US. Not sure what we do about Africa--you could darn near put the entire continent's population on the list at some point in the past 2-3 decades. Those are some pretty big chunks of folks.

 

[Pladio]

If you take the Middle Ages for example, I don't see a lot of places at peace, is what I think PJ is saying.

I however disagree with PJ's argument if that is it, because 50 years is not high enough a timespan to put in such arguments, if yet again, that is what he means.

However, dte, I don't think your numbers make much more sense either. Giving the 10$ bit ... There's very few big relief organizations which don't take quite a lot of money for admin costs and other expenditures. The Red Cross probably does take quite a bit of money as well.

The other argument PJ is stating though is something I do agree with. No one expects it to be perfect. The UN is an organization that tries to mostly do good. Of course it never works perfectly and might even fail more often than not, but if it even stops one conflict from happening or firing up again, then it is doing its job.

Again, I've stated this hundreds of times before and quite a few times on these fora. The UN is an organization that is based on what its members decide to do. Even though there's public outcry at what is happening in Tibet, countries know they shouldn't start a fight with China, because they're all quite heavily invested in China.
So, this means that there is no way for anything to happen to it unless, China gets isolated by close to the whole world at a single time for a prolonged period of time. Which in turn could lead to worse things.
Now, to generalize my example. The UN can't do anything on its own. It can only do anything if its members agree to it. Even passing some resolutions won't do much if a month later half the countries decide it's not worth pursuing that policy.

So, all in all, the UN is a symbol of diplomacy and talk, but I don't know why some people blame the UN for bad things or blame the UN for not doing anything.
It is called the United Nations for a reason. If the United Nations are not united, nothing, or not much can happen.

My two p.

 

[dteowner]

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277

I could be guilty of assuming the International Red Cross is as good as the American Red Cross, but I thought I'd give you Euros the benefit of the doubt.

By your criteria, if multinational diplomacy via embassies can diffuse a single conflict, it is equally successful to the UN. I'll toss out Bosnia as being no worse via NATO as any UN-brokered solution.

You don't need the UN to give China a toothless "global thumbs down" over Tibet. You've got dozens of embassies that could deliver our stern (but non-binding) displeasure.

If the United Nations are not united, nothing, or not much can happen.

Precisely my point. The UN will never, ever be consistently united on what to have for lunch, let alone something with actual global impact. There's too many voices in the room. They cannot possibly be of long term function by your own words, so why waste money that could be spent on meaningful and successful humanitarian aid via the Red Cross or similar entities?