What is the future role of the UN?

[Squall]

What do you feel is the future role of the UN?

On the surface, I love the idea of the UN -- the UN Charter is a great document, and I even like the UN flag (very nice design). However, in its 51 year history, the UN has had great difficulty living up to its ideals.

What reforms should the UN make in its next 50 years of existence? How can it guarantee the soverignty of its member nations, without diluting that soverignty in the name of uniformity in International Law? How can it preserve a nation's right to defend itself and protect its interests and maintain a peacekeeping role on Earth at the same time?

Should the UN ban any nation from membership that is not democratic? (Personally, I think that, at the very least, dictatorships and anarchies should not be allowed to be UN members. That way you won't end up with situations like Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights or Iraq heading the Committee on Disarmament.)

The UN, in its ideal role, appears to be an international clearinghouse of treaties and International Law, kind of an arbiter who certifies treaties between nations so that all UN nations recognizes them. Also, the UN is an arbiter which can be used to settle international disputes peacefully (whenever possible). Thus, peace on Earth is maintained. However, all conspiracy theories aside, it does seem like the UN has made some steps in the last 12 years towards becoming a "World Government", at least on paper, if nothing else.

What do you think? Is the UN a good idea that needs a lot of work, or a bad idea that should be abolished as soon as possible? Or, is the UN a good idea which has been executed faithfully? I'd love some Toon Zone opinions on this! :)

[Animation Otaku]

I have always stood against the UN. The UN is a corrupt idea and organization that is essentially the Empire of the World in all but name. They are overly rediculous in their demands, and push further every year. I believe that we will see them advance their plans towards a World Empire within the next 15 years. It is up to the people of the world to prevent this from happening.

[randomguy]

I have always stood against the UN. The UN is a corrupt idea and organization that is essentially the Empire of the World in all but name. They are overly rediculous in their demands, and push further every year. I believe that we will see them advance their plans towards a World Empire within the next 15 years. It is up to the people of the world to prevent this from happening.

The UN doesn't qualify as an empire. Empires are well-organized and unified. The UN is constantly broken up by bitter political dissent and heated bickering, occasionally valid, often pointless. They're better than the League of Nations, though. And any organization which managed to stick together, accomplish a decent amount, and stay relevant throughout the turbulence of the Cold War and the second half of the 20th century deserves props.

Seriously, I don't think we have to worry about the UN advancing plans towards a Left Behind-esque World Empire. They're far too ineffective to pull off something so ambitious. Almost comically so. They pose no threat if that's your concern.

If anything, I'd worry more about the US pulling off such a gutsy move before I'd worry about the UN.

[Senbei Norimaki]

The UN has never mattered. The UN isn't willing to enforce its resolutions. Countries only follow UN resolutions when convenient. Shady nations are put in charge of enforcing things that they're notorious for not doing themselves. Smaller nations use the UN to condemn the United States and Israel for everything that goes on in the world.

I consider Israel a very shady nation. I don't understand the reason the U.S. blindly supports them.

[RogueMartian]

The major problem the UN has, and will continue to have, is that it has no real power. If a dictator rises to power in some remote country in africa and slaughters a million people, the only thing the UN can do is pass a resolution. No country has to follow the resolution, and if they ignore it, there is no punishment. The second problem is corporations. Just because a country may decide to obey a UN resolution, doesn't mean businesses do.

The second problem that the UN is almost entirely owned by the united states. I think I read somewhere that 20% of its funding comes from the U.S., furthermore it's based in New York. So really, the U.S. asking permission from the U.N. for anything is almost laughable.

I'm guessing that unless the U.N. gets its own financial and power base, it will continue to be nothing more than a front for the US to pretend it actually cares what the rest of the world thinks. To be honest, I'm guessing that the US will dissolve its relationship to the UN before that happens, and the UN will go the way of the league of nations. Which it probably should, in an era when corporations control more than countries do, what's the point?

[Animation Otaku]

The UN doesn't qualify as an empire. Empires are well-organized and unified. The UN is constantly broken up by bitter political dissent and heated bickering, occasionally valid, often pointless. They're better than the League of Nations, though. And any organization which managed to stick together, accomplish a decent amount, and stay relevant throughout the turbulence of the Cold War and the second half of the 20th century deserves props.

Seriously, I don't think we have to worry about the UN advancing plans towards a Left Behind-esque World Empire. They're far too ineffective to pull off something so ambitious. Almost comically so. They pose no threat if that's your concern.

If anything, I'd worry more about the US pulling off such a gutsy move before I'd worry about the UN.

Yes, so comically disorganized that one could wonder if they actually are disorganized. The UN is a front, the recent issues are so insignifficant to them that they could care less how they turned out. Soon we will see the UN's strength when something actually important comes up. And then, we shall be afraid.

[Squall]

...The second problem that the UN is almost entirely owned by the United States. I think I read somewhere that 20% of its funding comes from the U.S., furthermore it's based in New York. So really, the U.S. asking permission from the U.N. for anything is almost laughable...

Why is everything the U.S.'s fault? The U.S. funds 20% of, and houses the headquarters to, an international organization that's been notoriously anti-American since its founding in 1945. (Admittedly, it was also anti-Soviet, when the U.S.S.R. existed, until 1991. It was all part of the global Cold War.)

When it comes to international relations, the U.S. is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If we don't get involved in other nations' problems, we come under the "You see tragedies unfolding, but do nothing to stop them!" argument. However, if we do get involved in other nations' problems, we come under the "The U.S. likes to stick its nose in other nations' business!" argument. So, what does the rest of the world want the U.S. to do?

[RogueMartian]

Personally, I don't care whether or not the U.S. involves itself in foreign affairs. When we keep our noses out of it like in the Rwanda situation a few years ago, there are complaints. If we try to get involved, like you said, they call us "nosy".

That has nothing to do with my earlier point. I was simply making the argument that the US cannot truly consider itself a "member" of the UN, as much as the "owner". My point still stands that the UN has no power and the US's involvement in it is far from equal to other members.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

The UN is the U.S.' b*tch. It's become quite obvious in recent years.

[Jade_GL]

Yes, so comically disorganized that one could wonder if they actually are disorganized. The UN is a front, the recent issues are so insignifficant to them that they could care less how they turned out. Soon we will see the UN's strength when something actually important comes up. And then, we shall be afraid.

Wow, I seriously hope that's a joke. The UN isn't some all powerful organization. It's simply a collection of countries. The US has more power in the UN than most other countries, except the other members of the 5 member Security Council, of course.

The UN is disorganized, at least in agreeing on things, because of the different backgrounds and goals of each country, not because they're trying to lull us into a false sense of security. They just care too much about their own goals. I hate to be a Realist, but countries are selfish and want things to happen which benefit them. I think that causes a lot of conflict. Not only that, but the different ideals, religions, etc of each country also can cause conflict and inability to agree on things.

But a front? Yeah sure, maybe in the next Metal Gear Solid game.