If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The UN
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Discuss.
To help here's a link to the CBBC page on the UN
And also the first page of a search on the BBC news page
To help here's a link to the CBBC page on the UN
And also the first page of a search on the BBC news page
0
Comments
Just as another link, history of the League of Nations which went realy wrong after a great deal of political inaction, the US not wanting to join, and France and Britain ignoring it a lot.
Why? What's going wrong? Like bongbudda said, it's a good idea. So why isn't is working?
Because it has tied its own hands and doesn't have the power of ability to act when it needs to. It seems to lack a sense of urgency too.
The current crisis in SUdan being a prime example. Why aren't the UN interveneing now when the reports are that 1000 people are dying every day...
With the Perm5 running the security council anything needing intervention has to satisfy them, and too often in the past and present they have used their veto to prevent something good from happening.
Basically it's a talking shop.
When it does act it can be quite impressive, it's when countries ignore it, re:iraq and the USA, that problems arrise.
That would help things a lot...
Shouldn't remove veto entirely, it's an important right, perhaps changing the rules on it would be more productive?
Thank you, helpful example. Couldn't think of something myself.
If the majority of UN members thought armed intervention in the US was necessary, then it'd be the will of the majority. But come on now, that's never going to happen and you all know it. The UN or their members don't take going to war as a light issue (well, most of them anyway) and we're not talking about children here voting to invade other countries for a laugh.
What would mean though is that the UN would be free to intervene by all means at its disposal (provided it was given an army to go with naturally) in all the conflicts that are seen by the majority of people in the world as urgent or pressing, without interference from any particular party with the right of veto that might have a different agenda.
I'm sure we can all think of at least of one conflict where a certain country has continuously vetoed any UN attempts to intervene and stop the carnage.
It would still require a majority vote, even under the current system.
The problem wit hthe veto is that it means that any suggestion before the council has to be supported by five countries. Any one of them can prevent it and therefore we get a bias towards the needs of this minority.
What if the other 200-odd nations support something and one of these doesn't? Theoretically they could prevent it...
When?
Please don't use the "I" word...
If anything that showed the UN working well (even though I didn't support them
UN can exist in three different forms:
1. A club of superpowers to solve conflicts between them in relatively peaceful way. As it actually was designed after WWII by America and Russia.
2. A club of ramblers not having real power. As it actually is now.
3. The world government. A dream of UN bureaucrats.
But UN as a democratic association of free nations is non-science fiction.
Even from point of view of formal democracy.
Um, not an expert but I should think there are lots of occasions where the US has vetoed action supported by the General Assembly. I would imagine that the issue of sanctions against Israel has been raised a number of times - but there'll be lots of others.
Aha (gorgeous Google
this site details the (more than 70) times the USA has vetoed resolutions. Some of them are slightly mind-boggling.
people were living everywhere though weren't they mate? It would have been better not to just 'give' them somewhere, because of some transcribed guilt from the holocaust.