UN Question

[Fiona]

This is something I've been thinking about for the past several years. Many comments lately have brought it up again. Who thinks We, the US is above the U.N.? and why?
Playing devil's advocate: Isn't it in existence (the security council) to help all countries get along? Can one country think it doesn't have to listen to the rest of the world?
Each country must of course be for itself and its people first. But we have agreed that there needs to be a world council of sorts. At what point if any are we "above" that council?

[Biker]

You misunderstand many of the comments. We're not above the UN. The UN has degenerated into a festering cesspool of second rate ambassadors who look out for number one. It's high time the UN was: a) disbanded totally, or b) kicked off US soil for good. They're an embarrassment to what the organization was originally intended for.

[Fiona]

You misunderstand many of the comments. We're not above the UN. The UN has degenerated into a festering cesspool of second rate ambassadors who look out for number one. It's high time the UN was: a) disbanded totally, or b) kicked off US soil for good. They're an embarrassment to what the organization was originally intended for.
lol yes...
you misunderstand my position. I agree with you. I want to know why!Is it ours to ignore? I mean of course we can not participate as any country can choose. What does this mean?

[ShinyTop]

I don't think we or any country is "above" the UN. I think we can all exercise our sovereign rights regardless of what the UN votes. The UN has shown it is capable of good acts but it has become riddled with every body for himself attitudes. The 3rd world countries are using the one vote per country rule to take slaps at the US and other countries. Fine, have at, but do not be surprised when we ignore your snipes. Ponder how fubar'ed the world would be if we actually listened and acted on each of the resolutions designed to put down the US and/or its allies.

[cdw]

The UN is another political organization. It isn't rational, it keeps itself alive.
And in the money. How can you trust something like that?

[Sarge]

Who thinks We, the US is above the U.N.? and why?

That's assuming that the United Nations is a global governing organization to which we are subjugated without regard to our own sovereignty.

[Fiona]

That's assuming that the United Nations is a global governing organization to which we are subjugated without regard to our own sovereignty.
excepting sovereignty... i think i covered that in the initial post. Obviously you don't have to follow rules that would be dtrimental to your own country's progress... but there would be consequences... no?

[Techie2000]

We are bound to the UN by the treaty we signed, not above nor below it, but part of it. We agreed to this years ago in the interest of international stability and in hopes that relations between countries could be improved and we could work towards the common good of mankind. Whether or not that goal is being met, is very much up to debate. We live in a polarized world where people will use any and all means to cover their rears and get what they want. I just know that whether or not it is reformed, I do not think disbanding the UN would lead to anything positive.

[Sierra Mike]

No, but removing it from US soil would put the onus on the UN to get its collective act together.

Of course, I'm sure if such a thing were to happen, it wouldn't move to the West Bank or anything like that. Probably Zurich.

SM

[ravital]

Fiona,

The U.N. was, in its first decade or two, in large part a product of the aftermath of WWII. So much of its character at the outset was a function of what had been determined by the outcome of that war. Countries that had survived by the skin of their teeth, had an interest in the organization and in making it relevant.

But it is not the first organization of this kind. The League of Nations was its precursor so to speak, and it ended up in a miserable state, where it had no choice but succumb to the dead-weight of its own irrelelvance, just as self-inflicted as the U.N.'s woes are today. And there is sadly very good reason to believe the U.N. could follow a similar outcome.

The bottom line is that charters, treaties and international agreements of any kind, do not possess any magical powers to compel one country or another to abide and comply. A modicum of fair-play and justice has to be observed. There can be, and sometimes are, moral grounds for violating the sovereignty of one country or another, but a country has to do quite a lot to get to the point where it merits that treatment. And if you look at the list of U.N. actions (or inactions, really) provided by Leon on another thread WRT Iraq, to name only one example, it's not necessary to be an ivory-tower legal scholar to see how the U.N. has marginalized itself.

The flip side of that coin is, that there would be a very dangerous vacuum if the U.N. didn't exist. And for as long as that's true, as much as I would like to turn that beautiful site into a hotel and convention-center, it behooves us to keep that organization headquartered on U.S. soil. But it does need to do quite a lot in coming decades, to re-earn the respect of nations, without which it is bound to end up just as meaningless as the League of Nations was.

[Fiona]

Thank you- this thread is going as I'd hoped... several different and even opposing views.

Would someone (like Biker) who thinks perhaps the UN should be disbanded like to speak up?

[ShinyTop]

Many moons ago I posted my thoughts on our membership in the UN. (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showpost.php?p=66270&postcount=59)

I will admit my thoughts on the UN are not quite as generous these days but upon reflection I believe as posted above.

[ravital]

Many moons ago I posted my thoughts on our membership in the UN. (http://www.globalaffairs.org/forum/showpost.php?p=66270&postcount=59)

Thank you for that link, Shiny, I find myself in complete agreement. Particularly this part:

...I think about the UN on a world basis. And I think about the responsibilities the most powerful country on Earth has to the weakest countries on Earth. What responsibilities you say? The responsibilities any leader has, the responsibility to set the example, the responsibility to show other countries what they can aspire to.
That's the most difficult part to explain to so many folks who don't understand it (Americans and others alike). We didn't choose this role, but we know we'd better be the ones playing it rather than leave it to someone else.

[Biker]

Although leading by example is admirable, I don't think it's going to cut the mustard in this day and age. When Libya is placed at the head of the Human Rights Commission and scandal rocks the very foundation of the organization, it's time to fish, rather than cut bait.

As has been mentioned in previous threads, the old League of Nations fell to the weight of its own idiocy. It's time the UN did as well. Perhaps we can create something worthwhile from the ashes. Maybe not. But I see nothing worth saving in the organization as it stands today.

[Fiona]

That's the most difficult part to explain to so many folks who don't understand it (Americans and others alike). We didn't choose this role, but we know we'd better be the ones playing it rather than leave it to someone else.Shiny and Rav... THAT is the part I need to bone up on. It is a part I agree with and yet have trouble expressing! THANKS!:thumbsup:
...and for the most part, my position hasn't changed, I still agree with Biker. :)

[Sacchiridites]

I hear countries saying "help us, US" not "help us UN." It's maybe too common that the world uses the two acronyms interchangeably, not understanding the scope of their own country's participation in the UN, perhaps. Or maybe they're conceding to the concern that money translates to power. As far as the UN is concerned, the "major funding is provided by......." (fill in the blank).