What's new

Is it time to disband the United Nations?

Is it time to disband the United Nations?


  • Total voters
    10

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
218,134
The idea behind its creation was probably good but the way its now become a tool for the rich and powerful to run their agendas has made it, in my view, a useless forum.

Do you agree?
 
The United States, China and Russia fought bitterly on Thursday during a United Nations Security Council meeting on the coronavirus pandemic as United Nations chief Antonio Guterres told the body that they had failed in their handling of COVID-19.

Guterres blamed “a lack of global preparedness, cooperation, unity and solidarity” for the coronavirus spreading out of control and a death toll nearing one million globally. More than 32 million people have been diagnosed with the virus.

“The pandemic is a clear test of international cooperation – a test we have essentially failed,” he told the 15-member body. If the climate crisis were approached in the same way, he said, “I fear the worst.”

US President Donald Trump, who is facing a re-election battle made more challenging by the disease’s spread across the country, on Tuesday demanded action against China for spreading the “plague” of COVID-19 to the world.

The US has reported more than 200,000 deaths, the highest in the world and accuses Beijing of a lack of transparency that it says has worsened the outbreak. China denies the claims.

‘Enough is enough’

US Ambassador Kelly Craft reiterated those accusations at the council’s virtual meeting, drawing an angry response from her Chinese counterpart Zhang Jun.

“Enough is enough,” he said. “You have created enough troubles for the world already. … The US should understand that blaming others will not solve its own problems.”

Speaking in English and noting the US deaths and cases, Zhang continued: “With the most advanced medical technologies and system in the world, why has the US turned out to have the most confirmed cases and fatalities?

“If someone should be held accountable, it should be a few US politicians themselves.”

The US “is completely isolated,” he added in remarks enthusiastically backed by his Russian counterpart.

Long-simmering tensions between the US and China have hit boiling point over the pandemic, spotlighting Beijing’s bid for greater multilateral influence in a challenge to Washington’s traditional leadership.

Craft’s attack took many diplomats off-guard.

“Shame on each of you,” she said.

“I am astonished and I am disgusted by the content of today’s discussion … I am actually really quite ashamed of this council – members of the council who took this opportunity to focus on political grudges rather than the critical issue at hand. My goodness.”

Diplomats said they were puzzled at the tone taken by Craft, who had left by the time the Chinese ambassador spoke.

Craft was “very aggressive” after a session that had been “more or less full of consensus,” one diplomat told the AFP news agency on condition of anonymity.

‘Broken’

Nancy Soderberg, a former US Ambassador to the UN, told Al Jazeera the organisation was “a microcosm of the state of the world” and that the testy mood of the event underlined how “broken” the global response to the pandemic had become.

“It hasn’t reached the point of no return,” she said. “It’s in every country’s interests to work together and take the measures needed to keep their people safe.”


Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov – without naming names – noted that the pandemic had deepened differences between states.

“We see attempts on the part of individual countries to use the current situation in order to move forward their narrow interests of the moment, in order to settle the score with an undesirable government or geopolitical competitors,” he said.

China’s top diplomat Wang Yi, meanwhile, called for better coordination and cooperation.

“Major countries are even more duty-bound to put the future of humankind first, discard Cold War mentality and ideological bias, and come together in the spirit of partnership to tide over the difficulties,” he said.

The US is withdrawing from the Geneva-based World Health Organization after Trump accused it of becoming a puppet for China during the coronavirus pandemic. The WHO has rejected Trump’s assertion.


“At times, geopolitics have tampered cooperation and hindered our agility. The pandemic has tested the international system like never before,” said the United Kingdom’s minister of state for South Asia and the Commonwealth, Lord Tariq Ahmad of Wimbledon. “But now is not the moment to reject international institutions.”

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian also appeared to take a stab at the US when he said the pandemic should not be used to undermine “all the work has been done over recent decades by feminist movements for gender equality”.

“We must be on our guard, we must be watchful, particularly when it comes to protecting sexual reproductive rights,” he told the Security Council.

Trump’s administration has led a push at the UN against the promotion of sexual and reproductive health rights and services for women because it views that as code for abortion. Earlier this month, the US voted against a UN General Assembly resolution on the coronavirus pandemic partly because it included such language.

World leaders were asked to send speeches in advance for the virtual General Assembly so Chinese President Xi Jinping was not able to reply to Trump’s video accusations when he delivered his speech.

The spokesman for the General Assembly, Brenden Varma, said China had requested to speak next Tuesday, the day set up for any nation to reply to statements.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020...angry-exchanges-at-top-un-meeting-on-covid-19
 
It would be retrograde to shut the UN, one of the pillars of postwar rule-based order (with the World Bank and GATT) that helped prevent another global war.
 
It would be retrograde to shut the UN, one of the pillars of postwar rule-based order (with the World Bank and GATT) that helped prevent another global war.

Except the USA ignored the UN and decided to illegally bomb Iraq.
 
It would be retrograde to shut the UN, one of the pillars of postwar rule-based order (with the World Bank and GATT) that helped prevent another global war.

If UN was formed to prevent another world war, it has been successful so far. If it was to resolve conflicts and bring peace, it has been an utter failure.
 
Absolutely, China is part of the UN Security council, there goes all its legitimacy right there...

Thank you Nehru, forever we will be grateful for ruining India....
 
It would be retrograde to shut the UN, one of the pillars of postwar rule-based order (with the World Bank and GATT) that helped prevent another global war.

I'm so sorry to say this but I suspect its got more to do with nuclear weapons than the UN.
It was and remains a nice idea but lets face it the bigger powers just ignore it anyway.
 
If UN was formed to prevent another world war, it has been successful so far. If it was to resolve conflicts and bring peace, it has been an utter failure.

I would say partial success.

Think of how bad things would be without it. If all nations could operate without threat of UN sanctions and Resolutions they would be invading and enslaving each other at will.
 
I'm so sorry to say this but I suspect its got more to do with nuclear weapons than the UN.
It was and remains a nice idea but lets face it the bigger powers just ignore it anyway.

But smaller powers don’t. If one such nation misbehaves then UN-organised coalitions of nations often stop them.

Then there is the excellent collaborative and development work of UNESCO to consider.

Without these forums, local groups of nations will form local alliances and start to compete and you get another WW1 type scenario though not necessarily European, as the EU will maintain stability there.
 
Look at the 5 permanent members with the veto

USA
UK
Germany
Russia
China

The UN did not prevent the Bosnian war, did not prevent wars in the MiddleEast, did not prevent war on Iraq, so on so on.

The UN is a relic of yesteryear. It might prevent world wars, but what use is that if smaller wars are not prevented.

So please stop pretending the UN is a force for good, it's not, it's East vs. West, you will never see Russia/China agreeing with UK/USA or vice versa.
 
World will never be one community until the concept of nation-states exists. This is the most divisive concept in the history of the world. I'm not sure about disbanding the UN though. It does serve as a platform where all nations could come and deliberate no matter how uselessly. However, it must be stripped off it's (theoretical) powers.

I believe nations will be better served if they pursue formations of concrete blocks with other nations based upon their shared interests. Right now the western nations are doing it in the form of NATO and all other economic agencies through which they sanction countries which cannot be controlled by them. The eastern hemisphere isn't doing nearly enough.
 
I would say partial success.

Think of how bad things would be without it. If all nations could operate without threat of UN sanctions and Resolutions they would be invading and enslaving each other at will.

agreed. world would be a worse off without the UN. The SC veto is the best thing, and it protects the nations against any majoritarian tyranny.
 
I would say partial success.

Think of how bad things would be without it. If all nations could operate without threat of UN sanctions and Resolutions they would be invading and enslaving each other at will.

Except UN sanctions only seems to apply to 3rd world countries and those that are at odds with the West..

Just look at the UN Permanent Security Council:
- USA
- UK
- France
- Russia
- China

Do you know what they have on common? The 5 most powerful countries in the world...

The UN is only used to push agendas for the wealthy and powerful countries - the biggest and prevailing issue is that everyone does not have an equal say in it.. Veto power should not only apply to the SC but all UN members..
 
World will never be one community until the concept of nation-states exists. This is the most divisive concept in the history of the world. I'm not sure about disbanding the UN though. It does serve as a platform where all nations could come and deliberate no matter how uselessly. However, it must be stripped off it's (theoretical) powers.

I believe nations will be better served if they pursue formations of concrete blocks with other nations based upon their shared interests. Right now the western nations are doing it in the form of NATO and all other economic agencies through which they sanction countries which cannot be controlled by them. The eastern hemisphere isn't doing nearly enough.

And religion.. don't forget religion world will never be one place is there is religion if "nation-state" is an issue as well.
 
It should definitely disband. There is no use when a few countries possess a monopoly over the entity.
 
And religion.. don't forget religion world will never be one place is there is religion if "nation-state" is an issue as well.

To some extent but i think this will be a bit unfair because then you will have to include any dogma that people adhere to. The idea of nation state has well defined physical and abstract boundaries which makes one nation-state distinct from another. Hence it stands out more than any other concept.
 
Except UN sanctions only seems to apply to 3rd world countries and those that are at odds with the West..

Just look at the UN Permanent Security Council:
- USA
- UK
- France
- Russia
- China

Do you know what they have on common? The 5 most powerful countries in the world...

The UN is only used to push agendas for the wealthy and powerful countries - the biggest and prevailing issue is that everyone does not have an equal say in it.. Veto power should not only apply to the SC but all UN members..

Russia and China aren’t “the West”.

Not sure UK is in the top five, or Russia. Germany has a stronger economy than those two put together, as does Japan, and India will be soon. You may be referring to nuclear arsenal strength.

It is not *only* for the Permanent Security Council members. Have a look at the work of https://en.unesco.org/.

The world would be a more dangerous place without the UN. Right now, oligarchs all over the world are pulling down the international rules-based order. Even if the UN were merely a talking shop (which it isn’t), jaw-jaw is better than war-war.
 
UN will stay relevant as long as it serves the interests of the elite nations. And that was the idea behind its creation. The moment it stops doing that, it will just become irrelevant.
 
Russia and China aren’t “the West”.

Not sure UK is in the top five, or Russia. Germany has a stronger economy than those two put together, as does Japan, and India will be soon. You may be referring to nuclear arsenal strength.

It is not *only* for the Permanent Security Council members. Have a look at the work of https://en.unesco.org/.

The world would be a more dangerous place without the UN. Right now, oligarchs all over the world are pulling down the international rules-based order. Even if the UN were merely a talking shop (which it isn’t), jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

The world is still at war mate. The only difference is that it’s not being fought at your doorsteps.
 
The UN did squat when Isreal used chemical weapons on Palestinians.

Then they wonder why people take matters into their own hands.
 
Atleast it provides a place to talk. You take that away and then lines of communications will become more tenuous than they are now.
 
The world is still at war mate. The only difference is that it’s not being fought at your doorsteps.

This in plainly untrue.

By and large the world is at peace, due to a large extent to the rule-based order of the UN.
 
This in plainly untrue.

By and large the world is at peace, due to a large extent to the rule-based order of the UN.

You are naive brother.

Wars of today are not fought as wars of yesteryear. Don't need bullets and bombs anymore.

Right now we have ideological, economical, political, cyber, media, and social wars going on, at a global level.

And this just the top off my head.
 
No, its a force for good and it should continue to exist. Its current model should be improved so its members don’t repeat the past mistakes but it definitely shouldn’t be disbanded. That’s like saying disband police because criminals continue to exist or disband Ladakh scouts because they ran away from China.
 
Back
Top