Centerfield

The UN has many problems far beyond just peacekeeping or peacemaking, and I'm not talking about the occassional inconsequential scandal (like the overblown Oil for Food program). The UN seems best at creating and sustaining poverty with poor advice and international welfare that seems to do little to alleviate the symptoms.

The UN might be better reformed if things like the IMF, Millenium Development Goals, and Kyoto were cut.

If the UN had less on its plate, such as just dealing with peace and security, it would be able to do that more effectively. The scope of the UN might be too broad right now to do anything very well.

Also, the UN paying somebody to have a pro-UN website seems a little strange. I can't really think of an appropriate comparison, but I'm trying to image either the US (or the UK or India or China or whereever) paying somebody to write a pro-US blog or Wal-Mart (or someother company) paying somebody to write a pro-Wal-Mart blog. Both examples seem sketchy to me, just as a pro-UN blog paid for by the UN to expressly be pro-UN seems sketchy.

The blog is a project of the UN Foundation, which is a partner of the UN.

http://www.unfoundation.org/about/relationship.asp

It was founded by Ted Turner

http://www.unfoundation.org/about/chairman_message.asp

I agree with jjayson about international poverty. But, I don't think we can honestly lay it all at the feet of the UN. Both the IMF and the World Bank have highly questionable track records when it comes to improving the financial lot of those countries where they get involved. More often what gets accomplished is that they force the country to open up to outside corporations. Which of course benefits the developed countries where those corporations are based. But, precious little seems to actually be done for the indigenous folk that the efforts are ostensibly made on behalf of.

The UN is a classic example of an idea that may have been good in theory but has not functioned well in practice. It's also a good example of an insatiable bureaucratic beast thay grows ever-larger and endlessly expands the scope of its supposed vision.

I support trying to reform the UN or starting from scratch with a new organization. Either way, end up with an org with fewer members more skewed towards democracy. Then think about ways to narrow the scope of the org's goals to focus on military conflict resolution geared towards avoiding wars if possible, enforcing agreements, and providing peacekeeping.

Sure, other ideas like economics and poverty are related and I'd be a fool to pretend otherwise, but must the UN have a position and a council iwth something to say on virtually every interaction between nations?

IMHO the UN is still only a forum. It has been inconsistent in its enforcement efforts. Now don't get me wrong, forums are useful insofar that they allow states to air differences etc. Forums aren't meant for enforcing.

The UN doesn't work because it is not operating the way it was intended. The founding states never intended the UN to be a mechanism for small countries to run the world. FDR intended the UN to be a way for the great powers (USSR, US, China, Britain, and France) to run the world. The small countries were really just along for the ride. During the fifties, the UN was really just a handmaiden for US foreign policy. That obviously changed with the end of colonialism and the rise of the Third World movement. Now you have countries with a lot of power but little responsibility and it is a disaster. In many cases, the UN has become just a place to settle scores and attack the West.

The UN can probably never be reformed because its present state suits the Third World countries. At this point, the Third World countries are much more concerned about protecting their prerogatives and power than they are about really solving international issues. Having Libya heading the rights commission sort of says it all.

Still, would we be better off if the UN did not exist? I don't think so. As Chris notes, it provides a forum for the "world community" to air issues. I think that's good. And I think the UN provides some useful services. I know a lot of people on this blog don't like the UN's position on the Iraq War, but the fact is, the UN inspectors were right about WMD in Iraq. The UN can still play a role in mediating conflicts, even if they can's settle them. But the UN has to realize that the coin of the realm, as always, is power. IMO, the UN is squandering what ability it has to play a role in world affairs by pretending to be the final voice of authority when it obviously isn't.