Yellowman03 wrote:
As the situation intensifies in Iran, and North Korea is blowing up nuclear bombs. I was wondering what other people thought about it. Most of us knew what happend in the 1930's. The League of Nations just asked Germany to quit invading, and it's lack of authority led to WWII. Is the UN's inability to control Iran, and somewhat North Korea going to lead to similar results?
let me hear your voices!!!
-The Yellowman
It's difficult to compare the two entities. The Second World War was far beyond any current or potential conflicts, and certainly destroyed a lesser organization that was mostly used by European powers to control their colonial and imperial interests without opposition. The current United Nations is an organization that enables all nations to have an equal vote (except for the Security Council) that also maintains programs throughout the world that aids suffering people. The effects of globalization have also changed how the world operates.
Certainly, the advent of the United Nations as a forum of all nations is one reason why it is more successful, but we have to note that every nation will act in its own interest first, particularly the major powers. International relations is not important to the United Nations in reality, and was also the case for the League of Nations. But, what point can we consider the efforts of the United Nations a failure? Like the League of Nations, there are many specific times where the organizations failed, but primarily these rely on the major powers. Minor conflicts have been avoided in the past with both the United Nations and the League of Nations with proper diplomacy, proving them successful. Perhaps we can find that many of the their operations have failed, but successes have also occurred numerous times; do we acknowledge the presence of the UN as an organization devoted to its efforts as a world governing body with only semi-authority, or do we insist that all failures are indicative of a larger failure, and that we abandon the UN?