Maybe that's because you never work with anyone. Even when you "help" people, it has to be your way. You'll never actually work with people, you'll lead and they can follow, or you won't go in. And you only do what the UN says when it suits you, rather than trying to adhere to their rulings most of the time.
the UN is mostly a toothless tiger atm, with its structural problems. Introduce qualified majority voting, re-vamp the security council ( and introduce qualified majority voting there, too ), and you might get an organization that gets shit done with regard to conflicts.
Btw, the UN has accomplished a lot of things that lay outside of the scope of armed conflicts, for example the UNHCR programm, the WFP, women's rights, protecting the environment, clean water, etc..
it is unfortunate that most people tend to look at the things the UN didn't do, as opposed to the things they have achieved.
As has been said, it is not the job of the UN to intervene in a nation's internal affairs, especially not without prior consent from that nation's government.
The africans need to fix their own country. For that to happen, there needs to be some evolution from within, a will of the people, so-to-speak, to resolve their problems in a peaceful way. As long as that doesn't happen, you can send as many soldiers as you want, it won't help anything.
You can't fix a country with bullets.
Btw, the UN has accomplished a lot of things that lay outside of the scope of armed conflicts, for example the UNHCR programm, the WFP, women's rights, protecting the environment, clean water, etc..
it is unfortunate that most people tend to look at the things the UN didn't do, as opposed to the things they have achieved.
As has been said, it is not the job of the UN to intervene in a nation's internal affairs, especially not without prior consent from that nation's government.
The africans need to fix their own country. For that to happen, there needs to be some evolution from within, a will of the people, so-to-speak, to resolve their problems in a peaceful way. As long as that doesn't happen, you can send as many soldiers as you want, it won't help anything.
You can't fix a country with bullets.
You put that more eloquently than I ever could.
Fully agree.
Fully agree.
the problem with any re-structuring of the UN and especially the Security Council is that the SC at the moment reflects the post-WWII balance of power. Together with the dreaded veto, this is bound to hamper any progress.ZombieVampire! wrote:
You put that more eloquently than I ever could.
Fully agree.
With the veto in place, there is almost a guarantee that one of the permanent members will veto any move in the SC, if it happens to contradict their own interests, regardless of the possibility that the rest of the world might benefit from whatever is proposed.
my suggestions would be:
- introduce qualified majority voting
- remove the veto from the SC, and add some key nations to it ( brazil, india, germany, japan, only to name a few ). In the SC, "one nation, one vote" should be the motto. Introduce QMV there, too.
of course, this is never going to happen, as it would mean that some of the old superpowers would no longer be able to superimpose their will on the rest of the planet.
For example (your UN comment)?ZombieVampire! wrote:
Maybe that's because you never work with anyone. Even when you "help" people, it has to be your way. You'll never actually work with people, you'll lead and they can follow, or you won't go in. And you only do what the UN says when it suits you, rather than trying to adhere to their rulings most of the time.
Who normally leads? The one with the preponderance of resources for the given situation. If it's military, that's usually the US. However, in E Timor, that was (and is) an Australian-led effort with US (and others') support.
The Six-Party Talks with N. Korea have been led primarily by the Chinese.
ISAF is predominantly non-American.
KFOR is predominantly non-American.
The UN forces in Haiti are predominantly non-American.
Normally, the rest of the countries demand that the US lead, even if we don't want to. They demand US action, even if we don't feel it's in our nation's interest to act.
Name another country that "helps" when it's not to their benefit (ie, "their way") to do so.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular