United Nations?

Question

Do you guys think that the united nation thing is working. Do you think that it works and rules are being followed? I have to debate this topic in my class but I got the side I wasn't ready for which is ''tht I agree'' in which I don't, and now i'm clueless. Please if you do agree tell me what to debate i need a little headsup.
Thanks you
If you help me I will give you 10 points or even 20 i can make a question and wait for your answer and mark it as a best answer!

Answer 1

OK, benefits of the UN. First, it is the only organization or entity in the world that collectively, and fairly, brings together the heads of 192 nations. This alone gives it the power to allow bargaining to occur and the ability to solve disputes without resorting to violence. While it is true that it does not stop all conflicts, we have to remember that when we are talking about war it is always measured in the conflicts that occur, never the ones that are prevented, which gives a bias against the UN.

The UN is the largest philanthropic entity in the world. It has nearly single-handedly irradicated Polio. The UN is the main staging ground for the fight against HIV/AIDS, especially in Africa where there is little to no funding. The UNDP (Development Program) has helped many villages and large societies acheive sustainable development and get back on their feet. It has programs that help billions of people annually, something that few others can say.

You may want to also focus on what the others are going to say against the UN and work to counter them. The most common arguement is that its ineffective. While it is slow, any democratic process is. Look at the US government, it is also very slow and their views and opinions tend to be more alligned than those of the members of the UN. We must take that into consideration when realizing the effectiveness of the UN. Second, the UN does not support the US. This one is almost untrue. Yes, we didnt agree on the Iraq war. But look at almost every other issue, the US and UN are almost one in the same. Most other members of the UN would agree that the UN is nearly in the US's pocket. The US has veto power in the Security Council, a power that allows it to make sure the UN doesnt do anything it doesnt agree with.

I hope this helps you.

Answer 2

I might agree with you that the UN is not currently serving a good purpose. They do very little to prevent/manage conflict, instead they do a lot of humanitarian work. Even then, the money they give to help poor countries usually goes to corrupt politicians or dictators and the people who need it never see it.

THAT BEING SAID...you must debate whether it is working. To do so, I would first look at its intended purpose as well as the purpose that President Truman laid out for the League of Nations. Truman's idea was to give countries a forum to express themselves so that the whole world would know where they stood in the hope that simple discussion and honesty among nations would decrease the threat of another world war. As I understand it, the aim was to avoid the kinds of secret alliances which led to and prolonged WWII. Of course, another hope was that by talking in an open forum, states would be able to keep each other in check to some degree. If you know the intentions of others, you are better able to explain to them what your reaction will be and that may ultimately change their decision. That's how I would approach the debate. Don't argue based upon popular sentiment and what people think the UN should do. Go back to its original purpose and what its creators intended to accomplish with it. If you do that, you'll win the debate.

Answer 3

When the world's nations gather to debate how best to conduct relations between themselves, it is only logical that a worldwide meeting place based on fairness and equality should be the forum. For half a century, that place has been the United Nations. However, modern times have shown that the idealistic solution has severe and sometimes catastrophic limitations.

The spectacular failures of the U.N. have shown that its ability to counter malicious minded intent to deceive the organization is almost non-existent. In addition, its fairness doctrine which assume all nations participate with equal authority does not take into account that not all nations recognize the need for fairness, indeed some use that rather naive approach as a weapon for delay and obfuscation.

1). Clearly no nation can or should depend upon the U.N. for its security. After the decade long ineffective U.N. debate over Iraq and the inability to disarm or control Iraq, and the subsequent U.S. led Coalition's ouster of Saddam Hussein, the debate has crystallized. U.N. WMD weapons inspections teams appear to have functioned well up until 1998, and despite claims that they in fact disarmed Iraq, the locating of ballistic missiles with ranges far beyond those claimed by Iraq, many still support the classic and erroneous notion that sanctions were working in Iraq. The inability for the U.N. to deal with human rights abuses around the world and especially in Iraq further highlight the irrational believe that the U.N. is a paragon of success.

2).This is also why depending upon the U.N. for critical negotiations in the areas of WMD is doomed to failure. Take for instance, the current situation in Iran, and reflect upon the revelations regarding Libya. If the U.S. had not led the effort to place Libya under sanctions and continue diplomatic pressure backed with a hand wave at the Iraqi invasion, in a few years Libya would be in a similar position as Iran today. Some believe that the U.S. led operation in Iraq and the War on Terror in response to the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. forced Libya's hand.

3). And certainly, nothing the U.N. has done or will ever do in the future could have prevented the attacks on the U.S. In fact, the U.N. cannot and will not be able to counter the threat of al-Qaeda. Is it a coincidence that there is no major element of the United Nations that goes out to fight terrorism? Huge pacifist organizations such as weapons inspectors and units designed to monitor non-warfare and human rights abound, but there is yet to be an equally weighted organization to analyze and repudiate terrorism.

4).Faced with an ability to destroy Israel militarily, the Arab nations ceased overt action and went to covert action. Today, the war between Palestinian and Israeli is a clash of ideals, fostered by the more radical elements of Arab society that will never rest until Israel is utterly destroyed and in the hands of Arabs. Any who doubt this are suffering from the idealist malady, wishful thinking.

5).Iran, North Korea, Sudan all contribute to the global threat in the next decade. But what of Syria, Lebanon and that quiet danger, China?
Characteristically, the U.N. remains not only ineffective but in denial. U.S. diplomacy, tempered by the belief that the unilateral approach fostered by the U.N. can be effective in certain situations, is doomed to fail in these countries.

6).Syria's lies about Hamas and Hezbollah sanctuary and indeed about Syria's control over Lebanon continue to "seize" the U.N. with paralysis. When none of the U.N. nations would even suggest that Syria withdraw from Lebanon and eject Hamas and Hezbollah, the U.S., through quiet non U.N. sanctioned diplomacy moved to foster new initiatives to bring Syria's decades of malfeasance back into the light, ending a decade of idealist ignorance of the status quo by the U.S. government. And now that the issue is finally getting some attention in the U.N., the idealist stands up and says, "see the U.N. does work".

7).The United Nations has proven itself as a failure for its entire history and will continue being useless. Maybe if peaceful countries withdraw their membership and stop participating in the United Nations in protest, will force the United Nations to abandon its old methods of dealing with non-peaceful and non-humanitarian nations.

Answer 4

The United Nations is effective only on education, cultural, economic and social matters. WIth regard to the security of nations, it is disregarded by the US and other superpowers resulting to the invasion of weak countries.

Answer 5

It is but they are slow to stop genocide in Darfur
and as Black Bush aka Dave Chappelle said "Go sell some medicie bitches

Answer 6

i do not think UN is working,it is a puppet of BIG 5 or world powers,especially USA!!UN is a formalistic organization,in all, UN is so sloganism,it cannot stop war,conflict,hunger,crime,deforestation,climate change, overexploitation!!!