As they are so easily dismissed by any country who doesnt agree with them ?I know they do some good peace keeping work still but so do Green Peace. But in the context of the world today are they becoming a non entity.
2007-03-19 02:43:36 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They where formed in 1945 to save future generations from war,to me they have sadly failed,and hold little power in todays world .So yes they are a non entity.
2007-03-19 02:58:20 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
In a perfect world comprised of countries that are ruled by the people of those nations instead of military dictatorships and monarchies, then the UN would be a forum for speech and compromise. In reality, many of the nations who vote on issues do so for venal reasons and use their recognition as a sovereign state to advance oppressive ideas. One example, would be that the Chair Nation on Human Rights is Libya, ruled by a violent, long time dictator and a nation that has no human rights. Dictator Chavez visited the UN recently to promote his oppressive, murderous regime and was allowed to speak and so long as he was bashing the US he got some applause. The UN is pointless beyond the Security Council and that involves only the most powerful nations. The UN is also the site of incredible corruption. There have been many cases proven of governments stealing the aid sent to their nation and even the outgoing Secretary General has been shown to be involved in siphoning off millions. The UN had a chance to send peacekeepers to Iraq after the US deposed the genocidal regime of Saddam but decided not to because it would be too difficult. Ideally, it would have been easier for a UN team to rebuild Iraq rather than the US who did the heavy lfiting of removing the Iraq military. No, the UN needs to either be revamped or reduced to a social organization with a softball team and an annual picnic.
2007-03-19 02:58:11 · answer #2 · answered by Tom W 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
One of your answers says 'give the UN real powers' what sort of powers would they be then? The American and British decision to override the UN authority regarding invading Iraq has probably done lasting damage as if these two nations can ignore UN pleas then so can other nations. I think the UN was only ever set up as a way for 'civilised' nations to smooth over international ripples and as I've already mentioned, two of the most 'civilised' stuck two fingers up to the UN, therefore when the chips are down, no, the UN is and has most definitely become a non entity.
2007-03-19 03:27:56 · answer #3 · answered by Dr Watson (UK) 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They still have a valid and important role as a world organisation. As for keeping law and order the UN are far from adequate. It is like a policeman trying to keep the peace with no power of arrest.
2007-03-19 03:53:25 · answer #4 · answered by Tamart 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What was the point in setting up the U.N anyway? America doesnt give a monkeys what they think and a few other countries for that matter. We should all follow the rules or just scrap it, as its not adhered to by ignorant trigger happy totalitarian world leaders.
2007-03-19 03:31:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The United Nations has never had a valid role.
The United States should immediately remove itself from the United Nations and have it remove itself from our land. Immediately, now, yesterday!!
2007-03-19 04:57:45 · answer #6 · answered by clwkcmo 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the UN needs rules, and members need to stick to them.
waste of time having so few 'full' members out of the entire world.
any action needs to be voted on.
a strong, united front would be enough to stop a lot of the problems around the world but as long as they keep bickering amongst themselves others see it as a weak spot they can use in propaganda.
2007-03-19 02:59:52 · answer #7 · answered by safcian 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i imagine no longer. we could continuously arm ourselves yet enlarge appologies for our previous envolvements. enable the international tear itself appart and preserve ourselves. fix our inner economic equipment and at the same time with our surroundings and set the degree for the international to adhere to. in the different case it really is in simple terms the country that slatered yet another united states (community individuals) and is now searching for brand spanking new conquest. I advise fairly individuals. What ought to you imagine in case you've been on the different area of the international watching us?
2016-11-26 22:14:14 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They have been a bit of a waste of space and a costly one at that.....However it appears a solution was found to replace them sometime ago!!.....Since Tony Blair came to power the 'United Kingdom' has BECOME the 'United Nations' with HIM at the helm. You'd think that would SAVE money by by having ONE institution.......WRONG!!!!! We are paying The highest EVER taxes to make sure HE has a comfortable retirement whilst the rest of us not only live in poverty but have to play second fiddle to ALL HIS GUESTS!!! LONG LIVE THE UNITED NATIONS......But PLEASE move out of MY country.
2007-03-19 04:04:39 · answer #9 · answered by kbw 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Give the UN some REAL power, and let them play a vital role.
It is good that leaders have a forum they can disuss their problems. But the UN has little power....give it some real power, with a strong leader. Then see what good will happen!
2007-03-19 02:47:48 · answer #10 · answered by Villain 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋