| You are in: Talking Point | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]()
| Monday, 18 September, 2000, 11:15 GMT 12:15 UK Does the UN still matter? ![]() The UN has a battered image - its successes in preventing war and restoring peace often eclipsed by more spectacular failures. The task at the Millennium Summit in New York is to reshape the United Nations. What should the organisation's role be in the new millennium? Should it have its own army? It's a club of member states, but who really holds the power at the UN? Shashi Tharoor, a senior advisor to the UN Secretary General, has been taking your questions and comments live on World Service Radio's Talking Point ON AIR programme. Select the link below to watch Talking Point On Air Your comments since the programme Speaking as an American taxpayer I don't want to see that $300 billion military fielded UNLESS it's defending our national interests. The UN may appear ineffective but it remains a potential instrument for establishing a global tyranny. The USA and the UK must withdraw. The UN would be much more effective if all participating countries paid it what they owe. It would also be better served if it were based in a country with a reputation for neutrality, such as Switzerland. By having its HQ in New York, it gives the impression, often exploited by despots, of being an arm of the US government. I heard recently that the New York Police Department has a budget several times larger than that of the entire UN put together. That just about sums up the attitude of the US and the dominating members of the UN and how much priority it is given. Isn't it time the people of the world were given a break from all these interfering institutions and allowed to live their own lives? The record of governments over the past centuries suggests that a truly global power would probably soon turn into the most oppressive and brutal regime in history. Less government and more freedom please! United Nations provide the opportunity to all the democratic, autocratic, civilian, military, good and bad leaders to grab an opportunity to shake hand with the god (USA president). With or without UN the miseries of many nations in the world will remain the same, unless they take care of their natural resources and use their money for building their own nations, instead of depositing it in US and European banks. They need also to give up their Anglophylic and Francophylic feelings (this is in particular essential for former colonies). It seems to me as a concept the UN is increasingly becoming similar with communism. On paper the idea seems really good but in practice it is hard to implement. There is greed and egoism every where, in the UN office and on every member country. Every member is looking at its own interest and as always the big fishes are the stars. Communism also had the same problems. So the sooner the organisation is dead the better, before the fall becomes harder. The UN is not perfect. This is a reason to improve it, not to abolish it. The alternative would be worse, unimpeded and pure power policy of single nation states, particularly the mightiest. Why does it have to interfere all the time in lost causes? Let the countries resolve the issues themselves. Of course it will be messy, eventually they will succeed, or collapse and it will be determined by the people. Divert all the money that is wasted by the UN to charities. The UN has become a common place for World Leaders to shake hands, engage in a t�te-�-t�te on world affairs, sometimes in topics of mutual interests and agree to disagree on vital and sensitive matters affecting their peoples lives and go back to dig the other. Later they will cry hoarse to take up the issues to UN which has no control or power over any member country. Ultimately World peoples' Taxpayers moneys are squandered serving no purpose. UN is doing a great job in Kosovo. Kosovo people are grateful for that. UN need reforms, that's for sure. Germany and Japan has to be a permanent member of UN Security Council as soon as it is possible. Peacekeeping missions have to be more efficient. Is there any doubt any more. The UN exists to rubber stamp US foreign policy to give legitimacy to most outrageous excesses of that policy like bombing of Serbia or Iraq. The UN is so bloated with greed and self-important nobodies. There is no wonder some major players don't pay their share. Forget about some kind of Sovereign right the majority member states shout about, most of them contribute nothing in way of world-wide fraternity, because of the latter countries led by egocentrics, the UN has become a tedious joke. If the UN is but a "tool" for the "west", then it's a useless tool. It's embarrassing ineffectiveness is a result of unrealistic expectations as to how it should operate. It should function as an international governmental meeting place, not as a concentrated authority in it's own right. This is the only way to avoid the recent harmful transgressions it has been responsible for against the concept of national sovereignty. The only thing the UN does well is waste the money of United States taxpayers. The best organisational structure for rapid response to an emergency, or critical situation is a hierarchy. The UN is a network of nations, which makes organisational communications more balanced and considered but is very sluggish to respond. The UN is an unsuitable organisation to be making military actions, but is better used as a global forum, where different countries can broadcast their different views and problems ... just like a computer bulletin board or news group. For a military organisation to be sponsored by the UN, it needs a decisive charter that is unanimously agreed on so that the organisation can respond quickly in a known way ... This may be an impossible task, as it is never really possible to forecast events reliably and accurately. In spite of all the criticism and invective the UN plays a vital role. Who else eliminated smallpox? Out of all the reforms that I would advocate, the one that would transform the UN, would be that any country that had not paid its fees, could not vote. The USA withholds its fees so that it can bully the UN for its own selfish ends as usual. Last time I checked, the USA was responsible for 84% of the total UN debt - even countries as poor as Mozambique had paid, but not the richest country in the world. The UN is the most important institution in the world. Each nation should give up a part of it's sovereignty to the UN and it should be a democratic body. It should be able to hold, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Cabinets, and Royal Families to account for their behaviour before all the other countries and have true sanction over them. Rather than waste so much time and money on institutions like the EU, the world should give more time and care to the UN The United Nations has lost the plot. It is not a forum for nations united for mutual benefit, but part of a game plan for its most influential nations. Any organisation such as the UN will not flourish or be acceptable to the majority of the inhabitants of this planet as long as it serves the whims and desires of powerful western governments and doesn't implement and apply its resolutions on merit, but rather in the interests of the (powerful) few. I am a former employee of the UN. I was a member of an International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Technical Assistance Mission (TAM) to the Saudia Arabian Presidency of Civil Aviation. ICAO is an agency of the UN Development Program. International Civil Avaiation has flourished and safe international flights to many parts of the world are possible, in my opinion, because of the UN. Why should economic and military power alone be the criteria for influencing the UN decisions? Why not people power? Why isn't the voting power of the countries weighted in proportion to their population? Your comments during the programme The United Nations is certainly wasteful in my judgement. For example, in Norway, employees of the organisation, including such staff as an assistant librarian, were some years ago given a gratis junket tour of an East African country for up to two weeks without this having any professional function for the benefit of that country. I suggest that the UN should welcome Taiwan as a member. Taiwan has a defined population, defined territory, a democratic government and the power to enter into law with other countries. If Taiwan got into the UN, it could do a lot for it. The UN should be an indispensable force, building and if need be, enforcing peace in many parts of the world. From my experience - as a reporter - with its peace-keeping work in Angola and Mozambique, I have concluded that the UN should get rid of three syndromes: Its unwieldy and absolutely stifling bureaucracy, its self-delusional nature and the fact that it is, unfortunately, the hostage of the five nations that among them dominate the Security Council and - incidentally or not? - sell most of the arms in the world. Those countries clamouring for permanent places at the security council should remember this position comes with responsibilities which cannot be left to any unstable third world state. Secondly, because most permanent members of the security council were the victors of the Second World War and mostly European, it is time the permanent membership reflected today's world situation. There will always be a need for the UN in the world, but a much more efficient, refined and decisive one. Whether people like it or not, it is painfully obvious that many developing countries are incapable of running their own economies and are therefore reduced to mass corruption, abuse of power, with displays of total lack of regard for the lives of their own populations. It's not the fault of the UN that these events are so common place, but these events do highlight why the UN is needed. The UN's emphasis on "sending in the troops" is unfortunate since it supports the idea that military troops can actually solve these problems. There should be much more discussion on the issue how CIVILIAN peace-keeping and peace-building strategies could in fact support the peaceful settlement of conflicts and the reconstruction of communities. And of course such civilian activities on a community or societal level need clear mandates, structural and financial support and a clear middle or long term commitment. The United Nations, whatever its limitations, is one of the few significant forums in which smaller and particularly poorer nations can plead their interests versus the more typical domination of the wealthy nations.
Sasha, Yemen
Sarah, England The UN will only be taken seriously if it identifies a role of which it is capable as an unbiased world power for the benefit of mankind, and restricts itself to that role while performing the duties of the role to the full. The problem is to define the role, mankind, the good of mankind and the capabilities of the UN. Without such definition and lack of bias the operations of the organisation are bound to be chaotic. Every institution has its short-comings as no man is infallible. The UN's main short-coming is a veto power that is inconsistent with equality.
Syed Mansur Hashim, Bangladesh The UN is a racist driven institution which does not reflect the realities of the new millennium. For the UN to be truly effective, the Security Council requires a major overhaul. The concept of permanent membership and VETO power should be removed from the council, and the number of members should be increased. Furthermore, all member nations should work towards the implementation of all resolutions, not just some of them. Only when these changes are made can the UN re-establish its credability.
Alex, Glasgow, Scotland The UN is NOT a democratic organisation. Whenever a majority wants to put something on the agenda there is always a veto by one of the permanent members. Therefore many issues are not discussed and many conflicts go on without any hope of intervention. One bloodchilling example: For the last 20 months there has been ethnic cleansing going on in Indonesia, on the Moluccan islands, resulting in tens of thousands casualties, half a million refugees, villages completely destroyed. Many plead for international intervention, but the Indonesian government refuses entry to any foreign forces. Myself and others are trying to get Maluku on the UN agenda but there is no chance of that, as China and/or Russia will veto it. So, the lives of millions of people are in danger and the whole world just sits back! If it was not so tragic, I would have a big laugh at the UN. It is a comedy without a happy end.
Tahir Jamil, USA The UN has been playing the role of an American agent since 1946. It has become a useless organisation for small/weak nations and should be abolished. The United Nations cannot be a world policeman. Rephrasing Rousseau, I'd say: the world gendarme would work if he were a.) perfect, and b.) immortal. Unfortunately, no single nation or commonwealth is unbiased and doesn't last forever to perform the functions we attribute to the UN and which NATO tries to perform now. But we must appreciate its achievements: universally accepted Declaration of Human Rights and overall respect to the International Community. The UN has fared much better than the League of Nations.
Albert Devakaram, Chennai, India The money spent on the UN peace-keeping force should be spent on refugees who don't have food, clothing and shelter. It would have given the UN a good name instead of humiliation from the smallest fighting force in the world. The UN's whole theory for peace is wrong. Peace only comes peacefully not forcefully. So, what's the alternative the UN? Better the devil you know I think. Keep countries in a forum where they can talk and sort out their differences. They have made mistakes and need to cut red tape, but they have also saved lives. Give them credit where it is due.
Vivien Cooksley, Cyprus The theoretical basis for forming the United Nations made sense, and the UN's goals are noble. But in practise, with the way the veto and the Security Council work, things aren't fair. You have a handful of countries making world decisions. And the Security Council seems to ignore its own resolutions when it's convenient, and use them as a justification to use military force when they want to. I think if there was some more democratic way of decision-making, the UN is definitely worth saving.
Kebby Mainga, Zambia The United Nations is as necessary as God is to Believers. We have different nations exploiting and using the United Nations in different ways just as different faiths use religion. We also have the dominant powers in both. Our focus should be on relations between the different components of the United nations and how we perceive the source of conflict and the best way to end the same Can anybody please tell me what dispute has ever been solved solely by the UN itself, i.e. a decision made by all the countries collectively and not just by the orders of the United States?
Sunhee Oh, South Korea The UN is the greatest creation to impose control upon the average world citizen by the hegemonists who run the globe. The United Nations is one of the world's essential tools for the survival of human beings and their planet: The beginnings of a world government which is a confederation of nations who do not surrender their identity, but do surrender a critical aspect of their state power: the right to behave aggressively against other nations, or their own defenceless populations. We, the U.S., have been irresponsible members of the U.N., complaining about its faults while starving it for the dues we owe it. But sooner or later we will be chastened, like all imperial nations in history. Then we will see clearly that, as Bertrand Russell pointed in 1959, all the nations of the world will have to "live together, or probably die together." I wish the UN to be abolished, for simple reason that in the nature of its organization it is not designed to protect the interests of the weak nations. Dealing with Britain, France, and US is a predicament which brings more impoverishment to those nations rather than growth and stability. The governments of the three nations mentioned are very well versed in tricks, dishonesty, and blackmailing. Through the UN they still target the weak nations, but in much cleverer way to maintain their own interests.
Rebecca, Phoenix, Az This step taken by the UN is a start for them to form a world government. United States citizens should be made aware that we are about to lose our rights if our leaders agree with this. Our constitution and laws and rights will be given away. Lets remain a free and independent people. So what do these people who don't see the value of the U.N. suggest then? What alternative do we have? The UN is a collection of the wealthy, corrupt elite of the world. Despite the fact that most of the countries from which they come are violent, corrupt, and cruel, we are now supposed to accept these "leaders" as having the formula for governing a whole world. If we, as people, follow along that path we deserve the gross failure of which we can be assured.
Harry Zhang, Bradford, MA, US Until the UN listens to all nations and their peoples regardless of their financial or military power, world peace and development for which the UN stands for ,will be unattainable. Allow the poor and the rich to speak their minds freely and the result will be a fertile ground to build world peace. Of course UN matters. It's a business. What do you think, these people that make good money should just go away? HA! I agree the UN should have its own army, air-force and navy for intervention. I also think it might be good if the UN was used in the future to govern all the countries of the world, with all countries pooling their wealth and resources and sharing them out equally according to need. The UN guards and symbolises the hope of humanity for a better future. The UN needs much reform to make it more effective but it's goals-a united and peaceful world where humanity can progress- remain the same. A neutral, effective organisation which acts without the domination of single countries and which enforces international democracy is more needed now in the 21st Century than ever more and this need will not disappear. To say that the world "plunged into war" as a result of the closing of the League of Nations is as asinine as saying that WWII was caused by Lindberg's transatlantic flight. Yes, the war followed that flight, but that hardly proves the flight caused the war, to put it mildly. If the UN were to shut down, it is far from 'inevitable' that a war would break out. The UN was meant for a platform, a meeting place. It was not intended to be a world governing body. If there are any attempts to make it so, that WILL lead to a war. I promise you that.
Casey, USA In June, I visited a small Balkan country that has an extensive UN presence. The local people 'felt safe' with the UN around as they felt threatened by the unrest and recent war in the neighbouring country. While travelling around I noticed 4x4 UN vehicles parked outside the most expensive hotel in the country. Out of curiosity I went in the hotel to find out the cost of a room. It was just under �200 per night. After speaking to the local people I discovered that the most expensive restaurants in the capital city are only visited by UN staff because they are the only ones that can afford it. Out of curiosity I did go to a few of these restaurants and saw it for myself. Eating out was as expensive as London. It seems like the UN staff know how to make most of it while on 'duty' especially when someone else is paying. I actually felt embarrassed when I saw the way the UN staff were spending the taxpayers money (including mine!). The UN should not have any military authority, it should just be a talking shop. Many people seem to be calling for the abolition of the UN but when the League of Nations collapsed the world was plunged into war. The abolition of the UN would surely plunge the world into another dark age. The UN cannot solve all the problems of the world, in all the countries in the world. We often see how Security Council Members entrust it with huge missions, but do not provide it with the legal, political, and financial resources it needs to fulfil its mandates. We need the UN to promote development, to foster friendly relations among nations and to provide its mediation resources in case of conflict. I think the UN goes in the disguise of peacekeeper but upon arrival in the country concerned it takes over and rules like it owns the place. As long as those without power are taken advantage of, the world will need a force to stand up for them.
The UN is just face of a powerless organisation that is operated under the strict US orders. We hear about diplomats visiting the UN having troubles at JFK airport from the US immigrations simply because their countries oppose the US policies or the US government calls them unfriendly countries. The UN lacks power, funds and organisation. The UN may not be perfect and it may not always be effective, but at least there is one organisation in the world that tries to solve problems in the world today. Establishing a UN army could improve efficiency and response times because there would be one command structure and all personnel would be identically trained, not like the current mix of differently trained troops and different equipment. It looks like the UN is failing - just like its predecessor, the League of Nations, did in the 1930s. In any case, I think the UN is just an undemocratic body that is out of touch with normal people. How can we have a unified body of countries when one and all are following their own political agendas? The UN was created to prevent wars and give some level of global stability. However since its inception there have been many wars and much instability all over the world. Even recently in Europe (Yugoslavia), Africa (Congo), Asia (India-Pakistan, Indonesia) and even in South America. In most cases the leading Nations do deals with individual nations that side line the UN like in the Gulf war or the UN does not have resource or will to sort be able to solve problems like in Bosnia or Rwanda. With this track record it may as well be abolished and the nations can continue on their own diplomatic tracks with each other. At least that way the countries in the still unelected Security C ouncil will not be able to bully the rest of the world so much.
The UN is imperfect, but like Winston Churchill's democracy, all the alternatives are worse. But the UN as an organisation does not deserve all the blame for the problems that beset it. The UN is a function of the international community: its failures are as much due to lack of political will on behalf of member states. Kofi Annan's efforts to reform the UN should be supported, but member states - and their citizens - should remember that they are responsible for the imperfect mandates and other decisions handed down by UN's bodies. The UN is not an independent actor, it never has been. It is a creation of states, with the USA being the most powerful. It was designated with other conflicts in mind than the ones it is faced with today, thus it has to adapt.
While the UN's lack of true leadership and money problems have plagued its reputation, it still retains one vital power that cannot be marred by the actions of poor politicians: it is a symbol of peace. A peace that sometimes has troubles because of the many opinions and too many egos in the way. But to those of us who hunger for a world of peace, where one person is not afraid to defend a stranger on the street, it is a standard. The UN is the idea that we, each and all of us, must take the responsibility for the problems in this world.
Much of the UN's ineffectiveness can be blamed on a lack of commitment from its various members as well as a "what's in it for us" mentality. If an individual member gains little from UN action, chances are it won't contribute at all. So much for UNITED Nations. I don't think that the UN should be scrapped. It's just got a problem. A very big problem! Western nations like the US and its allies only intervene in conflicts that serve their 'national interests'. Just have a look at Rwanda. Nearly a million Tutsi's were massacred. The UN was 'powerless' to stop it. It only shows incompetence and selfishness. The UN specialist agencies such as WHO, the Postal Union and ICAO etc do a fine job but otherwise the UN is a dinosaur and an expensive talking shop. The peacekeeping operations only work if the US is involved so unless a true International Army can be developed then we should abolish the UN. The United Nations is a novel concept, but in reality it is dominated by the wishes of the main powers. Getting rid of the veto powers will allow the United Nations to succeed in truly doing what it is theoretically supposed to achieve, however, it will be near impossible to wrestle away the dangerous and unfair toy (veto) that the 'select' nations hold. The UN today has become more of an ideal than a realistic matter. Sadly, the disputes within the system prevent the UN's aims being achieved. If we were to participate in the discontinuation of the United Nations then perhaps a more uniform and co-operative service can be put back in its place.
The UN is a tool of a western countries used to achieve their means. The countries sitting in the Security Council enjoy a never ending membership and some of them don't even pay their membership. So where is this organisation going and what good it can do? The UN is far from being unbiased. It needs serious re-organisation and steps toward efficiency have to be made since it is spending fortune but not doing much good anyway. Above all the veto has to be abolished. After that maybe, just maybe, the UN can become of some use to world nations.
Certainly the UN needs some kinds of reform since the organisation is the legacy of WWII. The privileges such as permanent Security Council membership and veto should only belong to a few countries. Taiwan as an independent state, conceived in liberty and democracy, has to apply for membership in the UN. But our effort were in vain because China would reject the proposal despite the rights of Taiwanese. Members other than 5 world powers in this organisation, in my opinion, don't have equal rights as they were promised. The UN has provided a place to promote dialogues that could have ceased conflicts and disputes. Unfortunately people only see little effects that the UN paid in maintaining global peace. It's time to change! I think the UN has lost its powers to keep peace in the world. Its decisions are dominated by superpowers, unless and untill UN get it itself out of the influential pressures of superpower countries and find its independent status its difficult that UN can solve any issue of the world.
Miland Joshi, UK A democratically elected federal United Nations Organisation, composed of autonomous political units, shorn of sovereignty, but bound together by the principle of subsidiary is a long-term objective worthy of striving for. Where the organisation has failed, it has mainly been due to inadequate funding or a lack of political resolve from larger nations. More of both, and it might become what it always should have been - an example of what humankind can achieve if it puts its mind to it. The United Nations is not being paid enough attention by members of NATO. It is a shame as this body is far more reasonable than for the world to be in the threat of war after war after war. If, the West wants peace it should be willing to support the UN. The UN is simply an example of what I call "invisible hand" benefits. Although the powers behind the organisation may not always work with the highest moral standards in mind, the very fact of their existence benefits the lower reaches of society, their stated remit. The UN is a failed, bankrupt, socialist, utopian dream gone awry. Can anyone name one UN success?
Sue, Germany We can't afford to abandon the UN. If the UN ceased to exist, who would wring their hands when faced with the atrocities committed by Slobodan Milosevic and his ilk? In my opinion, the UN are there to serve the agenda of the West. So called 'peace-keeping' is conducted on a very selective basis and the double standards of deployment are crystal clear. UK peacekeeping operations have failed the people that they have been intended to protect. In many instances it is not peacekeeping that is required but peace enforcement. What is the point of deploying an observer force if hostilities are raging around them and they are prevented from intervening or do not have the capabilities to do so? Sadly, the UN is well past its sell-by-date and needs abolishing at once. Its history of intervention in the last decade was pitiful and when it did intervene, the operations usually deteriorated into farce. The UN staff that remain today can be seen lording it up in spanking new 4x4's, eating in the best restaurants and playing golf at extreme expense on the only course. All this is paid by us, the world taxpayer, and might be more acceptable if we could see a reduction in poverty and suffering. Most UN officials are driven by private power and wealth agendas and should be stripped of rank. Yes, the UN does need reform. I was involved with parts of the UN in the early 90s and saw the problems at first hand. But it is the member states that cause most of the problems, with their often-conflicting demands. If the US paid up its millions of pounds of arrears, the UN might be able to afford to do some of the things that are asked of it. And if we and France would accept that we are not world class powers anymore and gave up our Security Council seats, then some proper reform of that body, perhaps the UN's most important entity, would at last be possible.
Paul R, UK As an ex-soldier and an ex UN official, I find the prospect of a UN army deeply unsettling. The UN is staggeringly expensive and inefficient, and a significant proportion of its staff is only interested in the acquisition of quite breathtaking salaries and allowances. Only the EU seems capable of eclipsing the UN in these respects. We already have an organisation, admittedly lacking in many respects, that can fulfil this role - NATO. Its original remit is restrictive but it can be widened and it is already demonstrating in Kosovo that it is effective and can integrate countries outside the alliance. Perhaps it should be renamed the Disunited Nations as its record speaks for itself. The 'true' power of the United Nations should be more representative of all member states and not just that held by the Security Council as is the case now. Either abolish the Security Council totally, remove the veto vote or include more member nations in the Council - increasing the numbers to 8/9 and introducing a 2/3 majority vote in place of the veto vote. Is it not better to have a humanitarian army free from the hindrance of national interests? Perhaps a UN Army could take a far more aggressive approach against those who commit crimes against humanity? It could also serve as a focal point for those who shake their heads while reading the morning paper, looking at the cruelties of the world while they say "something should be done about this".
UN operations should be based on efficiency in the future. With efficiency example we can take ex-South Africans being fully able to control mining area of Sierra Leone with 200 well trained and equipped "mercenaries" while UN cannot do it at all with 10,000 soldiers from developing countries. Generally the UN should be run with much less bureaucracy and personnel. I think that the veto should be removed and resolutions passed based upon the number of votes, and not the unanimous agreement of the permanent members. The permanent members should also be widened in some way to include other nations. Given the "achievements" of the UN where it was really needed, I wonder if we wouldn't be better off if we just abandoned the whole thing. |
Other Talking Points: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Links to other Talking Point stories |
| ^^ Back to top News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © MMIII|News Sources|Privacy | ||