Does the U.N. work?

[Major_Hans]

Because of all this arguing about U.N. resolution this, and U.N. autorizes that I have a simple question.

Does the U.N. have a lot of power, or not much?  Is it working?  Does it get the job done for which it was created?

Note:  I'm not going to put in my views on this one.  My intent is as a neutral.  I want to hear both sides.

[GRUNHERZ]

UN power = USA power  

Otherwise it's more or less totally ineffective in  dealing with serious issues.

[Hangtime]

*sigh*

lets see if it works after we leave.

[Maverick]

UN does work. It has increased the global warming effect from all the hot air expended.

[Dago]

The UN has become completly irrelevant.

Why do I say this?  Is it because some members don't agree with what the US says?   NO, not at all.

I say this because the UN, or certain wine swilling members lack the nerve to actually enforce UN resolutions.  Without the threat of action to ensure compliance, no country will ever feel the need to pay heed to even a blizzard of resolutions.

Did you ever see a television show where someone gets thrown in jail, and they stand at the bars yelling "let me out of here"?  Of course the jailers ignore them.  Well, its the same thing now with the UN.  The UN can stand around yelling "get rid of your WMD", but nobody bothers to listen.  Without the threat of real action, its just noise.

Pointed out earlier in this thread is the fact that the UN power is just a reflection of the power the US can bring to bear militarily.  Unfortunately now the UN members have decided that they will control the US and decide its actions.

Those deluded members are in for a big surprise.

Since nations like France have basically rendered the authority of the UN mute, I think it is time to disband the UN, or at the very least time for the USA to pull out of it.

I dont say this because I think nations like France and Germany disagree with the US, they have every right to their own opinion.  I say this because they have rendered useless and mute the authority of the UN to enforce resolutions.  Don't pass a resolution that you are not willing to back up.  Kinda like pulling out a weapon and pointing it at someone, don't do it unless you are willing to pull the trigger.

dago

[Sikboy]

I shouldn't post this.

There is a macro-economic theory out there called "Social Structures of Accumulation" At its most basic it was a spin off of the Marxist idea that capitolism will collapse under the weight of it's own internal contradictions. Those who believe in SSA, believe that economics works according to "long swings", if I recall, they were looking at about a 20-30 year cycle. At the begining of the cycle, a society will have a set of institutions which govern how wealth is generated, distributed and used. Over time, the problems of these institutions will begin to show, and within 20 years or so, they will degrade to the point of economic stagnation. At this point, new systems are developed, to fix or replace the current systems, and this leads to a period of economic growth until such time as those structures break down.

Why the hell am I talking about this? When it was my intetion to get my PhD, I was going to base my thesis on trying to apply this same model to International relations. I didn't get too far into it before I said "bag this I'm going to get a law degree and make some cash"  So I don't even know how viable it would be, but I think there is some merit.

International stability is a by product of the international structures of cooperation. Look at pre-WWI. Ah yes, the alliance system. Balance of Power. Keep em on their toes. This system worked reasonbly well until the participants stumbled on the magic combination of having Germany allied with neither England or Russia. Ooops, failure.

Attempts to build a new system in the post war years lead to the league of nations which never really got off the groud, and a rash of unenforced "feel good" treaties, which nobody bothered to obey. Ooops, Failure.

Post WWII.  We come up with the UN. The UN, as designed, give a voice to pretty much everyone, but keeps the power base in the hands of those who "won" othe 2nd WW.  This worked great during the cold war. It allowed everyone to vent, it added some transparency... mostly I think it just gave the nuclear powers an additional diplomatic tool for communicating.

But where are we today? Three years ago, I predicted failure, and maybe that's where we are today.

I feel that the UN, as it is structured right now is too riged and unchanging to continue to function in any aspect for much longer. The makeup of the Security Council doesn't really represent the geopolitical reality of today, but there is no mechanism for changing it. I'm affraid that it will take a catostrophic failure to change anything, and by that point, whatever is developed in its place will not be very much like the current UN.

I remember the amazing feeling of optimism in 1989-1991 during the end of the cold war. I'm glad I didn't know then what I know now, otherwise I would have spent the whole time brooding.

Bah, this is all just theory, nothing concrete, take it or leave it.

-Sik

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Sikboy
Bah, this is all just theory, nothing concrete, take it or leave it.

Interesting theory, and it appears to be easily tested empirically.  All you'd need to do is collect a long time-series measuring growth and recession in economic institutions or international institutions -- however you'd operationalize that.  Then run a time-series analysis on the data to see if these "swings" are merely artifacts of stochastic time-oriented processes or if there is an actual over-time trend.  That measurable trend, if it exists, would be your evidence.

But I digress.  You're just a political science geek anyway.  

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying


But I digress.  You're just a political science geek anyway.  

hehe, when I saw Todd reply I thought "Oh hell, this is why I shouldn't have posted it!" lol.

It wouldn't be too hard to test, and it would be pretty fun from a research standpoint (delving into the history is half the fun of being an IR nerd  ) but it's just too much work to do outside an academic environment.

-Sik