Quote:
Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 19 2004, 04:39 PM
Though I've said this before, I've accepted that it goes in one ear and out the other. The UN is a bureacratic organization. The only... ONLY way it can make ANY decision regarding the security or sovereignty of ANY other state is for its member-states to pass a resolution to this effect. If ANY resolution is passed by the MEMBER-STATES (ie. US, China, Russia, UK, France) of the Security Council, then the UN will act on that resolution IMMEDIATELY. Quite often, the UN wants nothing more than to go into these situations (except for the cost which they tend to foot), but it's MEMBER-STATES prevent it by not creating an appropriate resolution.
When you blame the UN for 'not acting', you show that you fundamentally misunderstand what the UN is and who is actually responsible. The P-5 and other Sec. Council member states. Your generalization is what supports an anti-UN ideology that is foundless.
|
If you subscribe to that argument then your basically saying that the UN is useless due to the fact that its more important for the UN to service the goals of its member organizations as opposed to servicing the goals of the UN.
As long as the nationalities on the sec coucil and the general memberships can dictate terms to the UN, it does not function as it should.
The UN should be an above nations and thier goals, and do things for the good of countries that are being bullied by other nations, or nations that are being destroyed from the inside. Instead its caught up in useless arguments by the larger nations who's members are more caught up in protecting the economic or physical good of thier country.
Thats the prime reason that the UN fails.
From the standpoint of anykind of military strength that the UN can apply is destroyed due to the fact that the Military commanders on site have to be subserviant to UN Beaurocracy (SP?) and poor command and control structures.