...

I also think that the security council is very questionable.. five countries that can veto all resolutions and proposals on a whim, more or less. It is not justifiable with anything these days as it had only been used in political powerplayes so far. I think the UN is more or less useless in its current form - for me the dutch UN soldiers in Srbrenica watching the massace of thousands are a very good example for that. They were there to keep the peace and we all saw how much good that did.

 I agree with utemia on the the "useless" designation. The reason she cites is a good one too. Not only did the UN stand around and watch that massacre, they were said to have provided gasoline for the Serbs bulldozers which were used to plow all the bodies into the ground. Worse than that, rthe disarmed the entire village before the massacre. Under Kriminal Anus's watch I think there was like 3 genocides. Just abominable.

I like the security council. They are the five (main) victors of World War II. That's why they have the power.

Other countries voluntarily joined the organisation in which those five have the special powers. That legitimises their power. I have no problem with that.

 

Indeed.

The UN has become simply an organisation that watches over genocide (and protects the perpetrators).

 

Don't worry. The Human Rights Council will get Israel for that!

 

 

To quote the movie "The fellowship of the ring" The world is changing.. I think it is no longer acceptable to make global politics according to the post WW2 and post cold war political situation - but of course it is in the vested interest of those that have special powers to keep them. But why should the victors of WW2 have special powers in a global organization 100 years after their victory? (Assuming that the UN will still exist in 36 years) Time moves on and political treaties and organizations form anew that have no ties to past events and can legitimize their existence by saying "we won way back then but nobody who fought back then is actually still alive". Otherwise, no change at all would be possible, ever.

The UN has become anachronistic in its current form and it is unwilling to change. All it really does is cost billions for bureaucracy alone - the peacekeeping missions are all just a waste of resources because they do not prevent anything, and I am sure humanitarian aid could be organized differently.  That is probably the only resort where the UN does good, and I am sure there are many issues which could be found that are bad within that as well.

Why not? Which cosmic law says that a victory must be undone after so many years?

You are right about the special interests and everything, but I don't see a mechanism or legitimacy to change it. If countries don't want the Security Council they could simply leave the UN and ignore it.

Heck, Brazil and Germany could found their own United Nations, declare themselves and Japan permanent members of its Security Council and compete with the established Security Council of the old United Nations on the grounds that the world has changed and there is nothing special about the old five.

 

But isn't the purpose of the United Nations to avoid change and preserve the existing?

 

I totally agree. But that's an argument against the UN, not against the special standing of the top five members.

Do you think that any of these things would work differently, if not the US, Great Britain, France, China and Russia had the special status but others or noone?

I think the US veto has so far avoided the UN becoming openly pro-genocide and I don't think that abolishing the last instrument of control civilisation has over the UN will help in any way.

Isn't it true that the few good things the UN does (and does worse than others) are those financed mainly by the west while all those bad things you cite are supported by those members who are not among the top five?

 

The UN security council is anachronistic in the sense that it represents a post WW2 and coldwar world which no longer exists in that form. The world is not organized into NATO, Warshaw Pact and block free any more. It has changed - and the UN failed to adapt to the new challenges.

The new problems and challenges are not mainly a looming WW3 between the US+allies and the USSR+allies anymore. Humanitarian aid, human rights, economical problems related to globalization,  migration, environmental problems, foreign aid etc. and promoting world peace *cough* are the main domains of where the UN is active - and those issues don't really justify the security council in its current form.

Generally, I think the UN has turned into virtually powerless, money guzzling monolith - my argument against the security council is just a small slice of the overall problems you already mentioned.

Interesting question. According to that statement, the german reunification and breakdown of the iron curtain would have had been something the UN would have tried to stop at all costs - including and foremost the top members of the security council.

I sometimes wonder how wise it is to assume that the status quo has to be preserved at all costs.

The UN was founded before there were those two blocks. It never took into account the possibility of such two blocks as the Korea and Vietnam wars clearly showed.




Those issues have nothing to do with the Security Council. I don't see why they have to justify or not justify it.




The UN are a lot of things but unfortunately not powerless. The dictators and racists in charge have every power to condemn smaller countries into virtual isolation and dictate policy whereever it suits them.

Take my pet peeve example of Israeli "settlements" in the disputed territories. The UN has an opinion on the issue. Why? What's it to them and why do they take sides? Aren't they supposed to be a forum for negotiation rather than a side in the conflict? (And if they had no power, how could they take sides?)

And this even ignores the UN troops in Lebanon who openly side with Hizbullah, share camps with the terrorists and hunt down Israeli spies rather than disarm Hizbullah (the latter being their "official" duty).

The UN are not powerless, they are a powerful player. They take sides and the Security Council cannot stop them since the councils in question work outside the Security Council's control.






The UN were set up to preserve the pre-Cold War situation, not the Cold War situation. The Cold War was an anomaly (even though it took up most of the time). When the Cold War ended, the UN's job was to make everything as it was before the Cold War.

After World War 2 and after undoing what Germany and Japan (and their allies) had done, the only open wounds were the Baltic countries (which they Soviet Union annexed), the British territory in Israel and some of those colonies.

Since then the UN tried to make into law every crime committed before the 1940s (except by the axis) and to avoid any border changes afterwards (except by communists).

That's how Saudi Arabia got to keep land stolen from the Hashemites in 1926 while Israel is condemned for annexing the Golan Heights. And that's how North-Vietnam got to attack and annex South-Vietnam while Jerusalem is an "Arab city".

In the mean time, the UN Security Council serves as a last check and occasionally manages to avoid the UN becoming totally dictatorial as the five great powers have a way to stop the UN before they have to fight each other.

That works very well.

 

That is just not possible. One can not turn time backwards to make everything as it was before. People change, nations change, problems change - the world is changing (quite a banal, but apt summary, really). It might have been a grand vision in 1942, but it is hardly a workable idea in 2009 to return the world to a pre 1939 status quo. Among other things, there would be no Isreal, you'd have colonies and the German state would be much much larger. Poland would be somewhere else on the map..

 

One can try.

 

You and I know that.

The UN probably know it too, but that doesn't stop them from trying.

 

There would be an Israel, it would still be under British rule. But independence for mandate territories and colonies was already part of the UN's original plan, so they are part of it.

As I said, the UN ignored changes made by the communists for the most part. The Soviet Union could, for example, annexx Lithuania and keep it.

And Germany always, officially, existed in the 1937 borders until a final peace treaty was signed.

 

I am constantly confused by how people believe that Israel didn't exist before independence. I live in Ireland but I don't believe Ireland didn't exist before independence from the United Kingdom either.

Israel was before 1949 under British rule, but it certainly existed.

Israel didn't exist, as a state or territory of any form under Turkish rule when the territory was part of the Turkish provinces of Jerusalem and Beirut. But it certainly existed before 1949 just like Germany existed during 1945 and 1949.

Here are a few interesting pictures:

http://www.jhom.com/topics/money/images/anglo_pound.jpg

The "Palestinian Pound", currency in Israel before and after independence until currency reform. "Palestine" was the European name for the land, "Israel" was the Semitic name. The Zionists always used Semitic words over European words.

I cannot read the Arabic on the note (it's too skillfully drawn) but it probably says "Palestine" as per British ideas. The Hebrew in the middle says "one Land of Israel pound". The note was printed by "Bank Anglo-Palestina [some Hebrew abbreviation follows]".

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3060/2561527910_591d40d0af.jpg

This is the emperor of Ethiopia arriving in Jerusalem, a city that did exist before 1949. The sign says in the three official languages (two are still official today) "Jerusalem" in English, "Al-Quds" ("the holy") in Arabic, and "Yerushalayim" in Hebrew.

Emperor Haille Selassie is incidentally a descendant of King David, king of the land that certainly existed before 1949.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/taphoto1900.html

http://www.historama.com/onlinepricelist/eretz-israel-palestine-holyland-collectibles/0040004.html

These are some pictures of Tel Aviv between 1910 and 1940. The city was founded in 1906 when the land was still part of Turkey (Jerusalem province). All these existing people lived in an existing land they called "Israel" and used the "Land of Israel Pound" printed as such and with that name by the Anglo-Palestina bank to buy products made in Israel.

Current thoughts at the time where whether one should by from Jews (because one should look after one's brother) or from Arabs (because one must treat the stranger in the land as one treats one's own).

What impressed me is how Diezengoff Street looks exactly the same now as it did then!

 

 

I meant the modern state of Isreal that was founded after the war in 1948.

And while Germany existed officially in its 1937 borders after the war it had been de facto not the case. The borders were effectively moved with the Potsdam agreement between Stalin and the western allies - and with the formation of the occupation zones. After the war was over, many german nationals were expelled (eg from Slovakia, Poland..) and those refugees have ever since demanded the repatriation of those lands into Germany and to be paid damages for their annexed property. Of course, it had become quite clear with the passing years that this would never happen. Even so, this issue is still a hot political potatoe, as I'm sure you're aware. 

 

Again, all those pictures show the modern state of Israel, before 1948.

The modern state of Israel came to be as a British territory and then became independent when the British got bored of running the place.

British law continued to be valid, as did Turkish law unless changed by the British. The currency remained the same and the civil service remained the same.

 

Germany did not vanish between 1945 and 1949. The merchant navy still existed and a flag was assigned to Germany for such purposes. The country was occupied, but it existed. The German states were refounded in 1947 and the new currency was introduced before independence.

 

 

 

I have always thought that was strange.  I never saw France any more deserving than say Poland.  And China?  While all were allies, in the end, the main muscle came from Russia (the old USSR), America, and the Commonwealth (UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.).  As it was a world war, most of the nations were caught up in it.  But in the final analysis, the countries listed above did the most damage, not China and France (and yes they suffered a lot, but then all nations did).

France was officially among the five main allies, Poland was not. Everything about France is strange. Even you.

 

That was likely a propaganda move to explain why fighting Japan was so important even after they had retreated enough not to be a danger to the US any more.

 

And those three are also among the five, of course. But including France and China basically covered all pre-war powers except those on the other side.

 

The seats were not awarded by damage but by being a founder member.