2006-08-27 07:34:17 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Good question! Member nations don't pay attention to any of their resolutions anyway. The UN has a minimal track record that it can point to as being successful. Any objective observer would have an easy time documenting their failures.
The only real good reason for the UN is that if aliens landed on earth, there would be a central place for them to go to meet us.
2006-08-27 07:43:23 · answer #1 · answered by Ginbail © 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Please pardon the cliche, but it really applies here:
The United Nations is between a Rock (in terms of funding) and a Hard Place (in terms of political and moral authority).
The Rock--quite simply, the United States thinks itself *above* the world, including the United Nations, and always has....this in turn has led the U.S. led Group of Seven (richest) Nations to pump more of their money into more corporatist, globalist, and ultimately *destructive* organizations like the World Trade Organization, who basically *have no moral sense* and will just *let* Big Money Ruin It All where ever possible.
Really, if the U.N. got full funding and full authority the way the WTO does, even just in Africa, there would be *far fewer* cases of back-breaking, impossible poverty, at least in Africa and also far fewer of the horrid side effects of a *broken* economy: civil war, famine, plague (HIV, Hantavirus, Rotavirus, Malaria), and genocide.
The Hard Place--The United Nations *knows* about the ill will and bad influence of the U.S. and to a lesser degree the other G-7 nations, and tries to compensate for it politically by giving other nations an equal say in things in an attempt to drown out the voice of money.....
Problem with this is, in order to *get* everyone else on board for this, the United Nations has had to basically *leave its spine at the door* as regards nations with Human Rights Violations. Your Dictatorships, if you will. It has allowed China, Iran, and to a lesser degree the former Soviet Republics and Russia *way* too much say in things as a counter-weight to the Dictates of the G-7, and as a result has lost *nearly all* credibility on issues of Freedom and Human Rights.
Really...if the UN didn't have a reputation for sucking up to Dictators, would Bush and Company have really been allowed to *illegally* invade Iraq on utterly false pretenses? No, and hell no.
Of course, thanks to Bush and the WTO and yes, Cheney's butt-buddies in Saudi Arabia, now the United States has a reputation almost as bad in that regard...but still.
Point is, when you have no money, or no political capital....what *can* you do?
Just asking.
2006-08-27 14:59:05 · answer #2 · answered by Bradley P 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because its initials are UN.
UN-helpful during world conflicts.
UN-cooperative.
Not UN-derstanding.
UN-decided in world affairs.
UN-fairly barging with terrorists.
2006-08-27 15:43:27 · answer #3 · answered by c_ray_mcmanus 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It's like an extra layer of management in a company, overkill and costly.
2006-08-27 15:04:31 · answer #4 · answered by Life after 45 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
everyone thinks the UN is partial and fair but they dont know that arabs control it............
2006-08-27 14:41:26 · answer #5 · answered by Velvet Rain Drops 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
cuz US rules only!
2006-08-27 14:39:33 · answer #6 · answered by high_voltage_ir 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋