Keith Devens .com

Why is the U.N. so irrelevent? I'm intrigued? Do you see it as not having a purpose in the world?

The comments on this post go a long way in summarizing my feelings on the subject. I'll quote the two most important parts:

Here's the problem. People seem to think that the U.N., an organization where half of its members are countries run by dictators, an organization where Libya is running its human rights commission, an organization that has Iraq and Iran running its conference on disarmament, somehow has a higher moral authority. It doesn't.

and

It's so ridiculous that the "legitimacy" of this war will somehow be dictated by countries like Angola and others I've never heard of which happen to have a seat on the security council right now, but are otherwise completely irrelevant in world politics. People have to understand that the UN gets it's legitimacy largely from us, not the other way around, since anything the UN decides is meaningless without the ability to enforce it, and we're basically the only ones who can.

den Beste makes a good point in the article I linked above:

There are UN agencies worth preserving. I would suspect that the WHO, UNICEF, and WFP would go independent and be directly financed. But it's hard to see how an organization like the UN could survive such a steep drop in revenue, or who would be willing to replace it.

I wasn't even aware that the WHO and UNICEF are considered parts of the UN. I'm not sure what the WFP is though. Anyway, in regards to the rest, I think the words "international debating society" best capture the essence of the U.N. The security council has shown its irrelevance over the past months, and over the past 12 years when it hasn't cared that Saddam has been flouting its demands.

In any case, I don't really see the point in a U.N. Countries that want to get together to support a cause can do that without needing to go through the bureaucracy of the U.N.

Why do you think the U.N. is relevant?

I'm not sure I do really, which is why I was asking. I agree with the first point certainly, how Libya got to run a human rights commission is beyond me, and should certainly be beyond the people who are meant to be running the UN.
Your second point I do disagree with though. You seem to be saying that the US should be allowed to call the shots in the UN and get any decision passed that they want. Anyway the way I understand it, countries like Angola don't really matter in the security council as it's only the 5 permenant nations that can call veto, the other 10 can only vote against.
I have to say that I do think the UN is a good idea in principal, although it does seem to have a lot more wrong with it than it does right

I have to say that I do think the UN is a good idea in principal, although it does seem to have a lot more wrong with it than it does right

Amen!

However, I'm honestly not sure whether something like the U.N. is even good in principle. Maybe there should be a place for countries to get together and debate important topics, I guess (hence, the "international debating society"). However, the problem is that countries always have their own national interests, and different countries' interests will inevitably conflict with each other. So even in principle, I'm not sure if something like the U.N. is ever a good idea.

Something like the U.N. is in a weird place. I'm not necessarily talking about the actual U.N. right now, but a hypothetical U.N. Come with me on my thought experiment... An international body like the U.N. will either be a super-governmental body, superceding any member country's decisions, wishes, etc., or on the other side of the spectrum, simply a place for representatives of countries to meet and discuss important issues, that has no power of its own.

We've seen both sides. The first side was exemplified by the international criminal court that Clinton signed us up for, and Bush rightfully drew us back from. The second side is what the U.N. has mostly become lately The first side would lead to such absurdities as other countries putting our troops on trial for whatever they consider "war crimes". Jordan, Egypt, etc. would love to get together and try Israel for the "Jenin massacre" for instance. But that's just not how the world works. On the other side, an international debating society is largely irrelevant, so I don't see much of a point in either side of the spectrum.

Parts of the U.N. that are good are things like den Beste mentioned, such as the World Health Organization. Focused specifically on a given issue, and as outside of regional politics as possible.

Your second point I do disagree with though. You seem to be saying that the US should be allowed to call the shots in the UN and get any decision passed that they want.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the legitimacy of a war is determined by whether the war is just, not whether we can get Angola or Cameroon to come on board My point is that the war doesn't need the "blessing" of the members of the security council to make it a just war. More importantly, if other countries veto a just resolution for war for their own self-interested reasons (France), that doesn't make the war illegitimate.

Anyway the way I understand it, countries like Angola don't really matter in the security council as it's only the 5 permenant nations that can call veto, the other 10 can only vote against.

For this most recent (2nd, or 18th, depending on how you look at it) resolution to pass (I'm not certain that this is how it works in general, so I'll just speak about this resolution), 9 out of the 15 security council members have to approve. However, the permanent members get veto rights, so if even one of the permanent members doesn't go along, the resolution doesn't pass.

2 birds with one stone!

lol

I see your point about how some countries can use the veto for their own selfish purposes, I'd argue that the US has done that with resolution 425, but still, that's not an issue here. I'm not sure how to fix the UN (fair enough to me, it's not like I know what I'm talking about) but hopefully someone will think of a way