Why Doesnt The Us Want To Be Part Of The Un?
Nikon
Join Date: 2003-09-29 Member: 21313Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2003-09-29 Member: 21313Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">educate me</div> Just as the question states, why wont the US become part, even if only for the Iraqi rebuilding effort, join forces with the UN? I am rather un-informed on the subject and guess there are multiple opinions on the subject. All input is appreciated.
Just to state what I have heard/read, the only real reasons that I am aware of are the fact that the UN takes forever to get anything done or doesnt do it at all because its too busy arguing amongst itself. This may be utterly wrong, but thats why Im asking you guys.
Just to state what I have heard/read, the only real reasons that I am aware of are the fact that the UN takes forever to get anything done or doesnt do it at all because its too busy arguing amongst itself. This may be utterly wrong, but thats why Im asking you guys.
Comments
In any case, there are numerous different answers to your question depending on ones political background. If you are like me in that you think that the war was waged for economical and macro-strategical purposes, the answer is that the United Nations would effectivelly block the Coalitions efforts in exploiting the position they brought themselves into through the strike:
Chances on contracts for the reconstruction of Iraqi infrastructure would either be made available to any possibly interested or only native companies, the political restructuring of the country would be taken out of the hands of the State Department, and USAmerican military presence in Iraq would be limited, thus disqualifying the country as viable alternative to Saudi Arabia.
In short, the aims with which the war was begun couldn't be met.
In any case, you're wrong in so far that there is not a UN mandate for the peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts of Iraq, which is what the Bush administration has been trying for, as parts of the Security Council, most notably Russia, but also France, Germany, and a number of the non-constants, insist on a UN led force for this.
It is true that many of the cited countries are already organizing individual support, however; Germany and France, for example, supply both development aid.
I'm not trying to paint any country - as opposed to administration - as greedy, nor am I trying to implicate that the governments opposing the war did so out of pure reasons; neither is of any significance for the topic at hand.
It doesn't matter why France opposed the war, because we're now looking at the opposition of the United States to a UN-led peacekeeping mission and its reasons.
I know it's easy to just get the pre-war arguments out whenever the word 'Iraq' flashes, I'm tempted myself, but such arguments are for the most part moot at this point. The bomb has exploded, so we'd best stop arguing about how long the fuse was burning, and instead look at how to pick the pieces up.
Let me get this straight. What you're saying is that you think the UN is a joke because first they did not agree to bomb Iraq, killing innocent civilians for undocumented theories. And then when the coalition defied the UN and bombed Iraq anyway, UN refused to pay the bill for cleaning up the mess?
If the US wants the UN to pay the bill, the least they could do was to let the UN take control instead of insisting on remaining in control and just keeping the UN to help fund their socalled "rebuild".
In any case, there are numerous different answers to your question depending on ones political background. If you are like me in that you think that the war was waged for economical and macro-strategical purposes, the answer is that the United Nations would effectivelly block the Coalitions efforts in exploiting the position they brought themselves into through the strike:
Chances on contracts for the reconstruction of Iraqi infrastructure would either be made available to any possibly interested or only native companies, the political restructuring of the country would be taken out of the hands of the State Department, and USAmerican military presence in Iraq would be limited, thus disqualifying the country as viable alternative to Saudi Arabia.
In short, the aims with which the war was begun couldn't be met. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
ahh, thank you for the correction, like i stated, im and relatively ignorant on the US-UN relationship.
Let me get this straight. What you're saying is that you think the UN is a joke because first they did not agree to bomb Iraq, killing innocent civilians for undocumented theories. And then when the coalition defied the UN and bombed Iraq anyway, UN refused to pay the bill for cleaning up the mess?
If the US wants the UN to pay the bill, the least they could do was to let the UN take control instead of insisting on remaining in control and just keeping the UN to help fund their socalled "rebuild". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
At that moment in time the CIA had 'definitive' evidence that there were WMDs in Iraq, despite that informations validity (or lack thereof) bares no real impact on the current situation (other than the US invaded Iraq - it doesn't mean the UN should or should not have helped).
The US is one of the largest supporters of the UN (<a href='http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/24236.htm' target='_blank'>Source</a>). They're one of the major reasons it's standing today, unlike Woodrow Wilson's original League of Nations that crumpled (mostly because it lacked US supprt, but for others as well). Although, there shouldn't be favoritism, I believe the UN should have helped the US if only to oust Saddam.
Now, today, the UN is willing to help Iraq with its formation of a formal government, but many Iraqis do not want UN support lately (was in a NYT article, but I must have recylced it). This is despite the fact that the US also would like the UN to help.
Just to state what I have heard/read, the only real reasons that I am aware of are the fact that the UN takes forever to get anything done or doesnt do it at all because its too busy arguing amongst itself. This may be utterly wrong, but thats why Im asking you guys. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because the U.N is pointless. In my opinion that is. NATO is all thats needed. Nothing gets done with the U.N and in my view, its as big as a failure, but a much wider, more expensive failure than Wilson's league of nations.
Just my two cents.
Just to state what I have heard/read, the only real reasons that I am aware of are the fact that the UN takes forever to get anything done or doesnt do it at all because its too busy arguing amongst itself. This may be utterly wrong, but thats why Im asking you guys. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because the U.N is pointless. In my opinion that is. NATO is all thats needed. Nothing gets done with the U.N and in my view, its as big as a failure, but a much wider, more expensive failure than Wilson's league of nations.
Just my two cents. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The U.N is just an extended version of the treaty of versailles in a sense. Give it time, it will cause a war.
Because the U.N is pointless. In my opinion that is. NATO is all thats needed. Nothing gets done with the U.N and in my view, its as big as a failure, but a much wider, more expensive failure than Wilson's league of nations.
The U.N is just an extended version of the treaty of versailles in a sense. Give it time, it will cause a war. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
League of Nations part 2 has often been lauded as criticism and I am inclined to agree. The UN is an oxymoron to begin with. All nations, the US included, are self-serving and no reforms can really change that. It is <a href='http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004801' target='_blank'>crooked</a> to the core. A sad truth unfortunately. The most attrocious example of course being Rwanda.
But let's say the US really doesn't want anything to do with the UN in Iraq, for the sake of argument. Should nations such as France and Germany contribute <b>at all</b>? I think the answer is yes. The most important thing for Iraq right now is to stabilize the country and democratize it. Supporting the coalition may not be 'appeasing the US', but it's at least moral.
Then don't say it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but since the European countries are so easy to scare with terrorist attacks the have effectly made the UN a joke anymore. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like Spain and Eta for example. They kowtowed straight away. Or Britain and the IRA, 30 years of terrorist attacks were probably my imagination...
The UN is largely pointless now, I agree, but only because one of its largest and most influential members has made it so.
Without dragging up the whole weapons inspectors thing again, the UN didn't feel there was grounds for military intervention to "enforce" the resolutions set after the previous war. The US decided that since the vote hadn't gone its way, they were large enough to go it alone.
You have a democratic process for legislation and one member goes off ignores the result of that process then yes, the process IS pointless.
Saying NATO is all thats needed is tantamount to saying that the US is THE sole deciding force in the world. I didn't elect them to be so.
Without dragging up the whole weapons inspectors thing again, the UN didn't feel there was grounds for military intervention to "enforce" the resolutions set after the previous war. The US decided that since the vote hadn't gone its way, they were large enough to go it alone.
You have a democratic process for legislation and one member goes off ignores the result of that process then yes, the process IS pointless.
Saying NATO is all thats needed is tantamount to saying that the US is THE sole deciding force in the world. I didn't elect them to be so. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And the other viewpoint is that the refusal to apply consequence to repeated condemnation in the form of UN resolutions is what has devolved the UN. It was the percieved moral obligation that split the coalition from the UN and not the size of the US military. US Military capabilities only allowed for less of a burden on smaller like minded nations.
The opposition from the White House and most likely the Joint Chiefs to relinquishing oversight in Iraq to the UN is based mostly on Washington's belief that the UN would mis-use US military capabilities. Washington believes that it has a better strategy than the UN. There are historical examples as to why.
I believe the UN still has a great role to play in international diplomacy. It is the ulitimate forum for national representatives to express opinions. However, they have proven their weaknesses when dealing in military/security situations.
Let me get this straight. What you're saying is that you think the UN is a joke because first they did not agree to bomb Iraq, killing innocent civilians for undocumented theories. And then when the coalition defied the UN and bombed Iraq anyway, UN refused to pay the bill for cleaning up the mess?
If the US wants the UN to pay the bill, the least they could do was to let the UN take control instead of insisting on remaining in control and just keeping the UN to help fund their socalled "rebuild". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aside from the 13 resolutions already passed...
*cough*
Yeah, the U.N. is a beruacratic mess that can't do diddly squat except give other countries foriegn aid.
So rather than the U.S. wait for the U.N., we just went in and did our business anyways.
And, enough with the "innocent bombings" of civilians.
Xect, do you even know what the civilian death count is/was? Astonishly low, a record in terms of the fact that the entire country was subverted into US rule and cities were bombed, but very few civilian casulties.
Much different from Afganistan, I might add, but Iraq was definatly a nice change of pace towards the civi's.
It's not like they can do anything without US backing. It always agrees with the US. And when it doesn't agree, US does it anyway.
not to mention NYC is the greatest city in the world :o
The United Nations as we see them today were founded after WW2 and in the first years of the impending Cold War between the USA and the SU. Their main purpose was from day one to supply a more or less neutral diplomatic territory on which the first two nations in the history of mankind that had the effective power of wiping the entire human race out could settle disputes in a way more civilized and transparent than the network of embassy diplomatics that had dominated the 19th century and eventually led to the byzantine system of treaties that had set the stage for WW1.
The only way of making this grounds acceptable for both super powers was ensuring that decisions couldn't be made against their interests; thus the Security Council with the constant members veto powers.
In other words, the United Nations were constructed with the aim of a relatively peaceful stagnancy between two solid blocks in mind - maybe neither got what he / she wanted, but nobody got stepped on their toes, either, sparing the world from a nuclear holocausts. In so far, the claim that the UN was a failure is disproved by us being capable of sitting here and talking about whether it is a failure, as opposed to being out in the wastes, searching for water that does not glow at night.
The claim that a union of nations is by principle impossible due to every nations inherent selfishness is comparable to the claim that a human society is impossible due to every humans inherent selfishness; the theoretically sound idea falls apart by a look out of the window.
The fact of the matter is, and I doubt anyone will seriously try to argue against it, that there are problems in todays world that can just not be tackled by a single nation; the UN or an equivalent are thus simply necessary to provide a diplomatic grounds on which to coordinate such endeavours, may they deal with humanitarian aid or peacekeeping missions. This - the organization of 'positive', affirmative programs and actions - is a grossly different aim than the one the UN was orginally laid out for - it's not a surprise to see it in hard times as long as the old systems promoting political stalemates are in place. Everyone in here claiming that the UN are obsolete should thus take a second to consider whether it wouldn't be more sensible to claim that the UN needs to change in order to perform a necessary function.
This brings us back to the topic at hand, the possible UN mandate in Iraq: According to the Cold War logic, it won't happen: As pointed out at the beginning of the thread, it'd in any case violate national interests of constant members of the Security Council - in other words, the issue should be dead and buried already.
The situation can however not be solved by any single nation, not even the United States - the upheaval about the <i>possible</i> recall of the Spanish soldiers proved this admirably - and thus, each nations selfishness will have to be cast aside a little in favor of a compromise - which <i>will</i> occur, sooner or later. Progress will have to be made.
An organization as big as the UN does not change easily, but it will. It has to.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everything you said was correct. The UN does need reform from its cold war days. However this quote I have some problems with. Our society works not because we've all agreed not to harm each other, but because there are <b>repercussions</b> if we do. The UN has repeatedly failed at doing this. It has failed in North Korea, Rwanda, and it's failing in the Sudan crisis as we speak.
In short we need an unbiased 'global police force' as we do in real society. Since the only reasonable candidate is the US, you can imagine how the rest of the world feels about this. Imagine if one political party controlled the police force, such is the UN.
[OT]
sorry, but I dont think anyone in thier right mind could call 10'000 dead an astonishingly low number.
Let me get this straight. What you're saying is that you think the UN is a joke because first they did not agree to bomb Iraq, killing innocent civilians for undocumented theories. And then when the coalition defied the UN and bombed Iraq anyway, UN refused to pay the bill for cleaning up the mess?
If the US wants the UN to pay the bill, the least they could do was to let the UN take control instead of insisting on remaining in control and just keeping the UN to help fund their socalled "rebuild". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aside from the 13 resolutions already passed...
*cough*
Yeah, the U.N. is a beruacratic mess that can't do diddly squat except give other countries foriegn aid.
So rather than the U.S. wait for the U.N., we just went in and did our business anyways.
And, enough with the "innocent bombings" of civilians.
Xect, do you even know what the civilian death count is/was? Astonishly low, a record in terms of the fact that the entire country was subverted into US rule and cities were bombed, but very few civilian casulties.
Much different from Afganistan, I might add, but Iraq was definatly a nice change of pace towards the civi's. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I Couldn't of said it better.
In all wars, invasions, or any mission there is going to be civilian deaths. You don' think the Iraqi's want freedom?
Well thats aside from the point.
As far as US not wanting to be part of the UN, is misleading as stated in the topic. But if i remember correctly, the war was because Saddam did not let Weapon's inspectors in, and by UN resoulution, we were supposed to do something about the break in the resolution. (after the gulf war) And it seems like after have have done the hard part, and spent millions of dollars on Iraq, it seems like countries such as France, Germany etc are trying to setup Oiling contracts, after disagreeing with the whole event in the first place.
(I hope this make sense, i just woke up)
sorry, but I dont think anyone in thier right mind could call 10'000 dead an astonishingly low number<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
actually they do not have any <b>real</b> numbers for the civilian death toll. They are speculating anywhere between 5000 and 10000, this is comming from an antiwar site so I dont put too much faith in the numbers. From what other sites are reported, it seems to be around the lower number of the spectrum.
[OT]
sorry, but I dont think anyone in thier right mind could call 10'000 dead an astonishingly low number.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're not putting it in perspective. Even at liberal estimates of 10,000 dead civilians, that is still not even half of the number Saddam killed in a given <b>year</b> (around 25,000). I think this <a href='http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3' target='_blank'>radio interview</a> sums up the problems I have with the anti-war's side bias (granted the girl on the phone is an idiot).
Now why should we let the UN natins come in and get these perks that US soldiers have died and fought for?
I hate to sound cold and uncaring, but a WAR brings death wherever it travels, the deaths of civilians is an unfortanate side-effect of ANY military camapaign. Nowadays militaries have missiles that can turn street corners and pick out single buildings out of a whole city, much more sophistacated then the saturation bombing of WWII. Now I don't know about the numbers of this war, but this is a relativley short military campaign and the deaths of civilians are now being caused by the gorrilia warfare being cared out now.
Now why should we let the UN natins come in and get these perks that US soldiers have died and fought for?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try to stay a bit more on-topic, the last paragraph seemed a bit of a tangent.
One of the controversies in Iraq was the US not letting other countries bid on contracts. This is stupid. You don't just cut-up reconstruction contracts to your pals. The point is to stretch those reconstruction dollars as much as possible. This means getting an international bidding war for the contracts, and may the lowest price win.
This was US selfishness. Regardless of whether or not these countries helped or not, if the US really want to help Iraqis they will spend their reconstruction money as wisely as possible.
correction.
If I rememeber right the plan of action was to give companies located in countries that helped in the liberation of Iraq the first shot at it. Most of the companies that win the bids are going to be big companies, they will then subcontract to companies (which can enclude companies located if Fance, Germany, ect.). I have no problem with rewarding the countries that spilled the blood to liberate the country, rather than vultures that wait till the war is over and **** that they cannot get theri pickings.
As for the US asking the UN for help with the reconstruction of Iraq, it's kind of dumb that the UN agreed. It's the US's war, therefor the US should pay for reconstruction.
On another note, I really didn't like how bush came to office. The electoral college is kind of a dumb idea. What's the point of voting if a select few giezers and rich people can just vito your votes? Anyways, that's just my two cents.
[EDIT] 10 000 civilians astonishingly low? Please. I'll just quote CoD here. The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million men is a statistic. [/EDIT]
Also, if 10 000 is astonishingly low, doesn't that mean that the casualties of WTC-strike were ridiculously low? So low, in fact, that they shouldn't be even noted? Yet it was enough reason to invade(so far) two countries.