A challenge question: Is it the UN's fault?

Question

The UN is often blamed for not preventing many of the human caused tragedies of our time. But so, too, are individual nations often blamed.

Using as many actual cases you want, argue why in those cases the UN is to blame or specific nations and less so the UN, if at all, are to blame.

I will try to give the Best Answer to the person that gives a fact based (with sources), well-reasoned and fair (not full of vitriol) answer. But, if I am not available to, which I might not be, I ask the community to please help choose the Best Answer winner. Please give good consideration to your choice.

P.s. No, this is not school related.

Good answers so far, mostly. One belief I have is that the very rules of UN's own charter, and the principles it tries to abide by, while nothing to be ashamed of, from what I know, prevent quick and decisive action. When you control a force meant to act as a buffer, but must go through multiple committee meetings over a period of days and weeks, or longer, it's hard to be effective against agressive action not directed toward you (self defense is recognised in the UN charter). I can't say that the rules can be any better, but they do appear to me to be an inherent disadvantage to quick resolution.

What do all of you think?

Answer 1

The UN by its very nature is a many headed dragon. That being the case it cannot move in any direction unless a majority of the heads agree.
In most cases as with the current fiasco with Israel, it isn’t a case of the UN not doing anything, it’s a case of the UN not being able to agree on what to do and then not being able to agree what to do afterwards.

In the early 1900’s we had a system where countries were allies. They had agreements of trade and of support in times of war or crises.
It was due to these alliances that WW1 started as France had to support Serbia, UK had to support France and one by one each country, got pulled in.

The UN is a better alternative and a step forward, but it is still fairly new in its concept and in the way that it works. Like all other political ideas the UN will learn its lessons evolve and grow or it will pull itself apart.
It would be nice to think that after 3 or 4 crises similar to the latest that maybe in 100 years the UN have a multinational force that is immediately deployed under certain conditions and restrictions as a peacekeeping or protective force.
However for that to be a viable option the UN would have to be internationally feared and respected and would need to be in all ways technologically superior in its weaponry and training or that UN force would just be another fighting for its life in a combat situation.
To get that superiority the UN would have to stop selling arms to countries that it may end up policing and that would mean that certain countries in the UN would have to lose money by not selling arms which is a business measured in hundreds of millions.
I’m sure you are starting to see the problem.

Politics is an awful animal and shows itself at its worst in situations like the UN where cultural differences stand out and each need to lobby to get its own share.
Just look at the story of the Eurofighter in its concept it was easy, each country gets a share of the building dependant on how many they are going to order, except that Germany drops its order, but still wants to keep the work. France wants a sea based craft, Germany want a bomber, UK want a strike plane. Everyone falls out until the Spanish and Italians say we want some then everyone comes back and it all starts again.

You will have heard the phrase ‘a camel is a horse designed by a committee’
The UN is the biggest committee in the world.
Make your own decision.

Answer 2

All G8 leaders, who ARE the U.N., are all members of differents Lodges of the Illuminati, and the U.N. is only the first step toward a New World Order, and the Nations will accept it, bacause they are scared. It is very important you make some deep research !

The Illuminati are forging the "right major crisis" they need to make the Nations accept their New World order, ruled by the martial law.
They are the Illuminatis, and they own us,
This is the New World Order, and it is your future if the world don't wake up :

And this is what Bush’s minions had to say in 2000;-
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"
Project for the New American Century (2000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Hermann Göring(Nazi) 1946 Confessions (Nuremberg Diary)
http://www.snopes2.com/quotes/goering.htm

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
David Rockefeller: Statement to the United Nations Business Council in September 1994

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with other around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." David Rockefellers memoirs (2002)

Make you investigations about Jesuits, the New World Order, the Illuminatis, the Free-Masonery, the Death Clan. They plan a world reduction of population of 80%...Far worse than Hitler...

They are preparing us for 2012, for the New Age, of Relelations, and the return of « God » from Nibiru.

“the zenith meridian at Giza runs through Jupiter at the Hyades in Taurus”, this means “the kingdom (Jupiter) will be restored to Egypt (Taurus) at that precise moment. Thus, Osiris, the Bull of Egypt, will return from the dead at 22:18:13 on December 21, 2012.” El Cairo time.

Answer 3

The problem with the UN is that its memeber nations don't want to give it power. The only way the UN can combat human tragedies like Darfur and others is through military force. However, the UN doesn't have its own personal military, it relies on soldiers supplied by its member nations. Thus the UN can only be as successful as its member nations allow it to be.

Answer 4

It would be the individual nation's fault. I don't need cases to point it out. The purpose for the UN is not to control countries, but to provide stability for the world. Ultimately, the UN has no real power to actually solve these problems without the help of the countries involved truly seeking a resolution to their respective problems.

Answer 5

The UN is a collection of nations all acting in their own self interest. You can't blame the UN without blaming specific nations. If the UN fails it's because it's structures and protocols aren't helping opposing nations to reach an agreement.

Answer 6

Well as you said the UN is frequently blamed. In the case of Israel attacking Lebanon many people slated the UN for slowing things down when trying to get peace. The fact remains however that if it wasn't for the UN then no one would step in and stop the fighting anyway. So yes, the UN took time getting peace but if they hadn't done it then no one else would.

Answer 7

The UN is anything but united. Each nation has its own agenda which usually is to the detriment of another nation. Those with the most human rights problems are very quick to condemn other nations to confuse the issues. The most recent very obvious case is the UN condemning Israel for attacking Lebenon but remaining silent on Hezbollah attacking Israel with Lebenons tacit approval. It is all one-sided.

Answer 8

UN is as strong as the countries who support it. The league of nations was destroyed by the USA. This was one of the causes of WW2. The brave french along with the courageous British and their commonwealth defended Poland, what did the coward Americans do? the passed a law so that any American who fort the Nazis would lose their citizenship.

Answer 9

I'm just going to make this general, rather than specific.

I've compared the UN to the referee in a professional 'wrestling' match.

There's the good guy, let's call him 'Izzy'. And the bad guy, let's call him 'Bullie'. And 'Ref', in his blue cap.

Both Izzy and Bullie are supposed to obey the 'Genny' rules.

Izzy follows the rules, but Bullie cheats. Ref never sees Bullie cheat.

But, miraculously, Izzy gets the upper hand. Bullie claims that Izzy fouled him. Ref pushes Izzy off Bullie.

While the Ref is warning Izzy, Bullie grabs a chair and hits both Ref and Izzy with it. Ref is so stunned that he doesn't see Izzy take the chair away from Bullie. Ref disqualifies Izzy for using the chair.

So, whose at fault? Certainly Bullie, but Ref is too, for being so inept or in the pay of Bullie.

Answer 10

The UN are there to step in and help, not to be there at the start to prevent something happening. I would say it is never their fault, but their faults may contribute to something bad happening.