WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines Will the UN collapse?

RetArt

A Rampant Vagitarian
1,025
0
0
#1
I read this on Turun Sanomat ( a finnish newspaper ) but the main idea can also be found at the bottom of the page!

-------------------------------

So. The summit of the UN is held 14.-16. 9. 2005
It is set up to be a disaster.
The main points of the summit were supposed to be "evolving" the UN to a better, more able state. Other points were diminishing poverty, a part of the UNs millennium plan.
Now it seems that the US sets itself laying sideways on the road leading to equality.
Usa:s UN ambassador John Bolton has made a little, 29 paged sketch, conserning 750 points in the UN legislation that shouldbe changed or removes. He sent this sketch out late last month, leavin fellow UN-members no time to answer, or to set up a rival sketch.
Sketch involves such things as:
The International court of justice should not be mentioned at any part, and US citizens could never be sent to it.
Bolton also wishes to remove every point stating the "respect for the nature", this is seen as a straight strike to the Kyoto-agreement.
They like third world issues like poverty to be set on the backround, and for UN to be especially silent about development aids.

It is commonly thought that USa, Bush and Bolton are so anti-UN greatly because the UN leaders, such as Kofi Annan are all greatly opposing the iraqi war (which is not such a great surprise, noticing that the war is set most illegal by the UN book, and the US leaders would (by the book) be sent to a rerun of the Nürnberg trials)

Dont get me wrong, I´m not sayin the UN is perfect, it has many great flaws, it has not done the job as efficiently as it could. But then again, what´s the point when there is one country that can romp and stomp all over it.
There are few plans in the Bolton sketch that are wel thought and which shoud be put to use, such as re-assembling the UN humanrights-committee. After all, former Zimbabve leader, Robert Mugabe was re-elected to it. A man and country which has no respest whatsoever for the Human Rights.

So what is your seeing on this, will the UN collapse, break like the soviet union, because one of it´s members has too much power and too powerhungry leaders, or will it recover and maybe get Bolton back on the track. That is John "there is no such thing as the UN" Bolton.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4225994.stm
 
72
0
0
#2
It already has in essence, but then noone will admit such fact. It's sad I know, but at least this illusion is still keeping some if not many people in the world from dispairing.
 

jamesp

In Memory...
1,714
1
0
#3
Yeah, I agree with ^. The UN is really virutally powerless, and has been for some time now.
 
1,723
92
112
#4
I see the parallels to the Soviet Union, but I think the dissolution of the USSR was the right course of action, while the downfall of the UN is certainly not. There were few tears shed over the fall of the worlds most powerful authoritarian dictatorship. The UN is too valuable to too many people to go down without a fight.
It will be interesting to see the role China plays in all this, as the up-and-coming world superpower, it would make sense for them to throw in with the UN, if only to gain the respect and support of many other countries (most importantly in Europe, where the Chinese are pushing for the removal of the EU arms embargo against them).
In the end, it will take a determined effort by the US and a few other big players to fully demolish the UN. This is unlikely, and a more likely scenario for UN dissolution is WW3. (for my opinions on WW3, check out this post: http://forums.wtf.com/showthread.php?p=222197#post222197)
The other thing is that something else would almost certainly replace it. The US would be throwing away it's place at the big boys table if they were to actually neutralize the UN. Remember the League of Nations? It failed miserably, and after a huge war, was replaced by the UN, it wouldn't be inconcievable for this to happen again, and the conditions are just about right at the moment, China will get aggressive soon enough, first Taiwan, then maybe South Korea, hell, they might even go after the "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", as Japan did.
 
72
0
0
#5
I think that's a little to far (WW3) for us to be judging right now. Of course we're seeing signs of another major war but we shouldn't be jumping to the conclsion right now. UN may very well persist for a long time as it loses its power bits by bits. Either way, we can't deny that as for now it still has some functions in the world theater.
 

RetArt

A Rampant Vagitarian
1,025
0
0
#6
well.. It appears the UN has narrowed USAs list a bit, so that now it is onöly cosmethic, with minor changes, which still bring more power to the USA in the United Nations.. But all the outright insane stuff have been cut off...
This might seem a good thing, but in a sense this has destroyed the whole point of the summit. They were supposed to concern on poverty, raising development aids and talking about climate change and what could do the pollution. Now it is merely a summit to raise USAs status in the UN. woop.
Other main point was to further develop the UN, which as they themself have admitted has gotten weak and powerless, mainly because of their helpless acts in Iraq war and its prevention.
 
1,723
92
112
#7
DementialWave said:
I think that's a little to far (WW3) for us to be judging right now. Of course we're seeing signs of another major war but we shouldn't be jumping to the conclsion right now.
I disagree, China is very powerful, is growing, and has interests that conflict with those of the US. Have you heard of the PNAC? They advocate a military-imposed US-run world. Members include Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. If that doesn't suggest that the Americans are reluctant to give up their prominence, I don't know what does.
DementialWave said:
UN may very well persist for a long time as it loses its power bits by bits. Either way, we can't deny that as for now it still has some functions in the world theater.
Of course it does, but there is a major world superpower attempting to bring it down, and (IMO) a major war on the way. The conditions for a UN breakdown are there, it's likely, though not certain, that it'll happen.
 

YUCK FOU!!!

Critical Update Notification Tool.
6,588
2,430
337
#8
we all knew it would happen, theres very little chance it would have been along for more than a few centuries. im not surprised..
 
1,723
92
112
#9
YUCK FOU!!! said:
we all knew it would happen, theres very little chance it would have been along for more than a few centuries. im not surprised..
Can I ask you a serious question? Why are you here? You say that the UN wouldn't have lasted more than a few centuries, your own fucking country hasn't even been around for three centuries, and, given how things are going, might not make it there. So we aren't talking about a few centuries in the future, we are talking about right-fucking-now. Whether the UN will collapse ANY TIME SOON! You retard.
So, after that little rant, do you, Yuck Fou, have anything relevant to say?
 
72
0
0
#10
ouch, that's gotta hurt.

As far as China goes, right now it's kinda obvious that the two biggest super powers are the US and the EU, and in my opinion these two powers really aren't getting alone all that well. Aside from the two China is the only other super power in the making. So the way it seems right now none of the powers will risk armed conflict with another in fear of the third party intervention. Then again, things can change rather rapidly if another "accident" happens. (and there's been a lot of them recently)
 

Nailbomb

I'm just really nice.
4,475
2,799
332
#11
canadian_pov said:
your own fucking country hasn't even been around for three centuries, and, given how things are going, might not make it there.
20 bucks says this kid hasn't done his research.
 

YUCK FOU!!!

Critical Update Notification Tool.
6,588
2,430
337
#12
canadian_pov said:
Can I ask you a serious question? Why are you here? You say that the UN wouldn't have lasted more than a few centuries, your own fucking country hasn't even been around for three centuries, and, given how things are going, might not make it there. So we aren't talking about a few centuries in the future, we are talking about right-fucking-now. Whether the UN will collapse ANY TIME SOON! You retard.
So, after that little rant, do you, Yuck Fou, have anything relevant to say?
alright, first you should know, as most do i am from boston, and incase you didnt realise i was stating the idea that the un wouldnt have been around for very long in the first place....okay now that you've stated the obvious, which has been said in nearly every other post in this thread... now, speaking of the rant quote, reverse the names, and tell me what you have to say.
 
1,723
92
112
#13
DementialWave said:
ouch, that's gotta hurt.

As far as China goes, right now it's kinda obvious that the two biggest super powers are the US and the EU, and in my opinion these two powers really aren't getting alone all that well. Aside from the two China is the only other super power in the making. So the way it seems right now none of the powers will risk armed conflict with another in fear of the third party intervention. Then again, things can change rather rapidly if another "accident" happens. (and there's been a lot of them recently)
NATO vs. Russia and China, my money ain't on NATO. The E.U. isn't a world power militarily, it doesn't have the manpower of China, they don't have the defense budget of the States, and they aren't coordinated. They also lack one of the most powerful European countries in Russia. I think China could seize Korea, Taiwan, and much of southeast Asia without too much trouble. But I'm just a crazy Canadian. :happysad:
Yuck Fou!!! said:
alright, first you should know, as most do i am from boston, and incase you didnt realise i was stating the idea that the un wouldnt have been around for very long in the first place....okay now that you've stated the obvious, which has been said in nearly every other post in this thread... now, speaking of the rant quote, reverse the names, and tell me what you have to say.
Well, my posts in this thread have been on-topic, intelligent, and coherent. I have mostly had my say. You have come back with, esentially, "I know you are but what am I?" This isn't B&T, I'm not going to flame you here, so stay on topic and post something interesting. On the other hand, other than this post, I don't have much more to say to you, so unless you come up with something interesting to say, I'm through with you.