Is It Time To Seriously Think Of Disbanding The UN Because It Is a Tool Of The US?

Question

And replace it with something more effective?

Most answers are from Americans, paranoid and over here. I mean it as a serious study. The US haven't paid their dues for many years. And the new body should be based in CUBA!

Answer 1

Good idea, but it will be probably replaced by something equally unrepresentative where any one of five countries can sabotage a vote by all the other countries.

Like most US rants, they think it is OK when decisions go in their favour, but against it when having to use their veto (eg to protect Israel).

The classic example was the pro-UN stance when the decision went against Iraq for "illegally" invading Kuwait and used for the 1991 destruction of Iraq and subsequent brutal sanctions. They were anti-UN when the UN was against them for the "Illegal" invasion of Iraq in 2003.

I think Tehran would be a better place than Cuba. The US claims that the delegates use it for spying can be tested because then the US would at least be able to get some intelligence on Iran instead of the current stupidity and talk of a nuclear attack.

Answer 2

The UN is not a tool of the US. I'm not quite sure why you think it is to be honest.


It is however a largely ineffective orgainsation made up of people who can't agree on anything.
It is no more effective than the league of nations that came before it.
I honestly can't see what you would replace it with that would be more effective though. After all the problem isn't the actual organisation, it's that different countries have different agendas. So rather than working towards a common goal they are all doing what is in the best interests of their own country. Not supprising really.

Oh and just because the UN doesn't back then US in everything it wants to do isn't a bad thing. Perhaps some of the things the Bush administrion does are only in the interests of themselves and big business or even just plain wrong. The UN is after all, not just there to give the US unquestioning support and just because they don't doesn't mean that people should be calling for the US to pull out of the UN. As I said it is a largely ineffective organisation but some of the arguements against it i've seen on here are just plain daft and show a complete misunderstanding of what role the UN is actually supposed to carry out.

Answer 3

I am not American.
But I don´t agree w your question (?)/remark.
No one controls the UN, as a matter of fact there is no control at all.
Specially over costs.
They spend and spend. Some people uses the UN for their advantage, money, nepotism, favouritism, etc...
UN should be reorganised, from foundations to the roof.
But even so will it work'
We need a place/organisation where every country could be present and discuss the global problems.
One thing you must not forget. The UN is not only a political body.
They are a lot of agencies in different areas with positive work, but even these should be reorganised.
The World needs some kind of UN organisation. I don´t know what.

Answer 4

Just because organisation is not working the way you like it doesn't mean it should be disbanded otherwise much would not take place in this world. Everything cannot happen the way we want it but if we give our input we can make a difference in changing issues which are of concern to ourselves.

The U.S. I believe is still the largest contributor to the United Nations and as it will always be money talks.

Can you imagine the last the last 150years without the United Nations?
The United States mostly funded a solution to make the world accountable to itself otherwise many world crisis- events would have turned out differently.

I would propose more Nations pay-up and get more active in the United Nations Programmes and functions.

Answer 5

it is more correct to say that it is the tool of the globalists elite ... when enough of the major world changes are made then the UN will start gaining in power... its already probably much more far-reaching than you realize.... once the world is deemed "ready" all it would take is pulling the plug on the economies or a major war for the UN to assume the leadership and override national constitutions and borders. ... thats just my opinion .. and the UN already has juridiction over all national parks and sanctuaries ... i read somewhere that it is like 80% of the total area of the US .. so it wouldnt take much to make a changeover when the time is right.

Answer 6

The UN is clearly not a tool of the USA, because the USA resents it so much. As far as moving the UN to Cuba, this would be lunacy; its better to have the USA inside the tent p*ssing out, than outside the tent p*ssing in.

Answer 7

The League of Nations started after World War I failed to stop WW II. The UN is behaving in the same manner. From 1945 to the 1970’s, the United Nations looked to be a strong successor to the failed League of Nations. Success of sorts in Korea and the Congo had boosted its international image. However, many of the problems from the Cold War it could not stem. The effective occupation of Eastern Europe by Russia made a mockery of the promises made at Yalta and other war meetings. The treatment of Hungary in 1956 could not be stopped by the United Nations. Likewise, America’s involvement in Vietnam could not be stopped.

By the end of the 1970’s the United Nations had lost some of its prestige. It was clear that the two superpowers, America and Russia, would follow the foreign policy that they wanted to regardless of what the UN wanted.

The whole issue of the relationship between America and the UN weakened the UN. Since 1945, America had been the dominant force in the UN. America provided the UN with 25% of its annual budget and expected to have a big say in final UN decisions - an influence that matched the hundred of millions of dollars America has paid into the UN’s budget. Likewise, some major international problems were dealt with by America flexing her diplomatic muscles (such as in Suez and especially in the Middle East) rather than the UN solving them.

As more and more Asian and African nations gained their independence and joined the UN, power blocs within the General Assembly have developed. These have challenged the belief that the old order of western nations should dominate the UN simply by using their financial clout and their historic connections. Seven blocs have been identified:
the Developing Nations which consists of 125 states
the Non-Aligned Movement which consists of 99 states (mostly Asian and African who avoid joining military alliances)
the Islamic Conference which consists of 41 states
the African group of 50 states
the Latin American group of 33 states
the Western European group of 22 states
the Arab group of 21 states

Within the General Assembly, all nations regardless of wealth, military power etc., have one vote. The same is true in the specialist agencies - one nation one vote. However, much of the important UN work is done in the Security Council and the five nations of Russia, America, Britain, France and China still have the right to veto a decision of the Security Council. This system has been challenged by the newer members of the UN who want one nation one vote in the Security Council as well. The five permanent members of the Security Council have fought to keep the system as it is claiming that as the five permanent members invest far more money into the UN’s budget and, as a result, should have more sway than nations that pay far less into the UN’s budget.

In 1985, this theme was even taken up by America’s Congress which declared that:
"Voting rights (in the UN) should be proportionate to the contribution of each member state to the budget of the UN and its specialised agencies."

In 1985, America provided the UN with 25% of its budget; the USSR provided 10.5%; Angola 0.01% and Saudi Arabia 0.86%. America claimed that such an investment should have its rewards. If the ‘Big Five’ withdrew their financial support or reduced it to the level of other nations in the UN, then the UN itself would face near bankruptcy. There was little the UN could do if members failed to pay their contribution. After the Congo crisis from 1960 to 1964, Russia, France and Belgium refused to contribute to the $400 million it had cost the UN to bring peace to the Congo.

Throughout the 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s, the UN run up debts nearly totalling $1 billion. In 1986, America refused to pay 50% of its annual contribution in protest at the influence newly emerging nations had or were attempting to get. America pointed out that 85% of the UN’s budget was paid by just 20 nations yet many smaller nations were trying to reform the way the UN was run (especially its voting system) without making the same financial commitment to the UN.

Towards the end of the 1980’s the UN appeared to have split in two: the richer old established nations that essentially funded the UN on one side and the newly established but poorer nations on the other side. These nations claimed that they were only poor because so much of their annual wealth was taken up in paying off debts to the world’s richest nations. The world’s richest nations have responded to this charge. They claim that internal corruption within these newer nations is responsible for their poverty - not the debts they owe for money borrowed.

Within just 45 years of its birth, the UN stood at a crossroads. If it divides into rich and poor nations, where does this leave the whole concept of all nations working for one common goal?

Answer 8

Yes it is. In fact the US should help them pack! All the UN is is a giant forum for anti-american vitriol. I would like to see them relocate to some place like the Sahara, Timbuktu (sp), or Maybe even Siberia. Let the Russians put up with the gaggle for the next fifty or sixty years.

Answer 9

Not really a tool of the US ...Forget whatever it says about world security n human rights the only thing they're capable of doing is preventing the WWW111 slowly~. Yes it is rather useless nowadays. US provides most of the financial foundation to UN .

Answer 10

The UN certainly doesn't have the unity that it once had in trying to cure world problems. I believe it has something to do with the leaders who represent their countries.
Somebody said Bush was declaring war on Iraq. I didn't hear that. Did anyone else? I thought he made a good speech. I'm not a Bush fan, but I believe that he said it like it was.