I'm sure organizationally there is room for improvement. Maybe money shortages. Does the US govt want to both portray them as, and ensure that they are, ineffective. Maybe we dont want others making decisions contrary to ours because we feel cheated with just the one vote... you know since we bear the lions share of costs. What would it take to get the UN back on track as a true world body that responds in crisis situations, mediating disputes to promote world peace? Should they maintain a UN armed force or is that a failed strategy?
2006-07-27 07:17:19 · 5 answers · asked by answers999 6 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
The fact that the US government only supports it when it says what they want. That the other big countries are about the same doesn't help. The absolute Veto power of the big 5 nations is a complete detriment to making the UN a global voice. It needs to be redesigned more equally for all nations, instead of heavily balanced toward the agenda of 5 nations.
2006-07-27 07:46:41 · answer #1 · answered by John J 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The main problem is that the UN which was established as a-political body has become heavily infected with political interests.
This is why the UN can't deal with the present threat of terrorism from islamic groups or nations (Iran for example). Every time someone does something to upset the arabs they immedeatly condeme Israel while most european countries jump according to the music of arabic nations just not to upset them or the oil prices will jump.
I think there is almost no constructive discussion in the UN because every one of the strong nations has it's other political issues which affects the way they vote. The result is irelavent decisions which reflects other interests.
2006-07-27 14:34:56 · answer #2 · answered by Mr Y 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. Well, I believe in importance of UN . Of course UN has a few strong points but many weaknesses.
2. Most of the world country are poor and weak. As UN is the representative of all the wold countries, which are weak, I don't expect something super from UN.
Conclusion:
1. If all the world countries development and democracy is improving then UN will be stronger than the current one.
2. structural change is like having a new cloth (in this case only). If a man is sick you can't cure him by changing a cloth. The best alternative is ETHICAL DEMOCRACY(the real one not the forged democracy!).
2006-07-27 14:36:20 · answer #3 · answered by Azage G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only way for the UN (or any Country, World Government etc) to be truly affective is to have or be able to create an army. The UN has NO powers to force countries to send troops to anywhere, so they must rely on countries volunteering them. Until the UN has its own army that it can deploy on its own, it will never be affective.
2006-07-27 14:26:49 · answer #4 · answered by sjoschko 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cancell the VETO, what is the point of voting if certain countries can decided the result of vote??!!
The US is responsbile for the UN ineffectiveness, it is hindering it from taking any role in the world.
UN armed force? will the US let it function?
2006-07-27 14:24:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋