United Nations power, is it too much or too little?

Question

should the un have more authority than it does? Should it have less? is it an effective tool or is it just a waste of time because the 5 seats that hold veto power will do nothing that would be against their own interests? should it be less secular??? What would make it work better? BECAUSE I KNOW IT IS A GREAT IDEA WHY ISNT IT WORKING LIKE IT SHOULD????!!!

Answer 1

Absolutely the U.N. should have more power.

It has became significantly less effective in the past few years because the United States - the only world superpower, the leading funder of the U.N., and the leading provider of peacekeeping troops - has made it national policy to undermine the U.N. at every step.

Case in point - compare and contrast how Bush's father used the U.N. as a framework to build the alliance to repel Saddam in the first Gulf War vs. how W went in and lied to them to motivate the present Iraq war. In the first case, we had a vibrant and strong coalition which even included partners like Syria. In W's case, we effectively went at it alone.

The security council veto is an important feature. While it prevents some things from happening which could be considered "justice" (e.g. sanctions against Israel, which is presently in violation of dozens of U.N. resolutions related to its ongoing illegal occupation of Palestinian territory) - it prevents a radical polarization involving one of the nuclear powers which could escalate to war.

The key to rebuilding the U.N.'s strength and credibility is more responsible leadership in the United States - treating the U.N. as a vital tool for arbitration of international disputes vs. something to be subverted.

Answer 2

To me the United Nations is a great idea. However its a useless organization with no real power. You got five countries that have vetoe powers and every time one is vetoeing. The only real power is the one the United States and Britian gives them. Look at the UN sanctions against Iraq after desert storm, any sanction against Iraq was vetoed by Russia or China. Their hands are tied. It is a useless organization that member counties waste their money and energies on just to be a member. I would say get rid of those damn vetoe powers the five life-time members have and take it to a vote such as the US Congress does and let that be the end. It would be a more viable World Organization than what it is now.

Answer 3

I think the UN accurately reflects the world it is asked to police. There are too many oppossing views that have merits each way to reach any real solution. The compromises just are not working and never can.

Answer 4

During 60s and 70s are strong, right now no power, they can' t even make a call for 3rd world nations. For me they are useless

Answer 5

Educate yourself on Socialism and the attack on America by the leftists in Europe and the 3rd world. The only good thing about the UN is it's lack of efficiency, otherwise it could really be dangerous.

Answer 6

Way too much but much of it is controlled by the USA.