When will anyone expend the energy to fix the UN that they spend in attacking it? The US is one of many nations IN the UN. Hell, the UN building is IN the US.
Why is the UN constantly the whipping boy of countries when they themselves should be held to blame for its failures?
Prisoner6, I vehemently disagree. Over time, organizations develop a distinct 'corporate cultural climate'. The one at the UN is rotten to the core. To fix it, all the corrupt and tainted personnel must be replaced. At the very least this must come from the top. How would you recommend doing this? I personally think it should be subdivided into separate component organizations but with new membership. There is no other way to do it. Then you have to change the perception of those countries who send their worst diplomats to the UN for lack of anyplace else to send them.
"The one at the UN is rotten to the core. To fix it, all the corrupt and tainted personnel must be replaced. "
Agreed. That doesn't mean you disagree with me though.
Your suggestion sounds alot like one I have thought about: Change membership on the security council to regional organizations such as NATO, EU, etc instead of individual nations. This would encourage countries who have membership in multiple regional orgs to like the US, Britain, and China to negotiate with their member countries. This would reduce much unilateralism in Security council decisions and possibly curb selfish individual interests in Security council resolutions.
But whether you agree with me or not on the how, I am glad you agree with me that we, as Americans, need to care about the UN and instead of bashing it in, we need to help fix it from the inside.
prisoner 6, I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond again.
While I do agree with the second part of your statement, "Why is the UN constantly the whipping boy of countries when they themselves should be held to blame for its failures?", I don't believe it should be fixed. I believe it should be dismantled completely. Yes there are useful components of it that could be preserved but the overall body is worthless and so would be anything that would replace it.
The whole world works on the principle of self-interest. It has to.
"The whole world works on the principle of self-interest. It has to. "
I don't agree with that statement. Call it idealism, call it faith in human good will. I think that statement is defeatist at best and doesn't give us anything useful to build upon. Admitting selfishness is not the same thing as embracing it as the only human emotion worth pandering to.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
--John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770.
6 Comments:
Sweet! Gotta get me one.
Posted by Matthew Peek
*sigh*
When will anyone expend the energy to fix the UN that they spend in attacking it? The US is one of many nations IN the UN. Hell, the UN building is IN the US.
Why is the UN constantly the whipping boy of countries when they themselves should be held to blame for its failures?
Posted by theprisoner6
Prisoner6, I vehemently disagree. Over time, organizations develop a distinct 'corporate cultural climate'. The one at the UN is rotten to the core. To fix it, all the corrupt and tainted personnel must be replaced. At the very least this must come from the top. How would you recommend doing this? I personally think it should be subdivided into separate component organizations but with new membership. There is no other way to do it. Then you have to change the perception of those countries who send their worst diplomats to the UN for lack of anyplace else to send them.
Posted by Matthew Peek
"The one at the UN is rotten to the core. To fix it, all the corrupt and tainted personnel must be replaced. "
Agreed. That doesn't mean you disagree with me though.
Your suggestion sounds alot like one I have thought about:
Change membership on the security council to regional organizations such as NATO, EU, etc instead of individual nations. This would encourage countries who have membership in multiple regional orgs to like the US, Britain, and China to negotiate with their member countries. This would reduce much unilateralism in Security council decisions and possibly curb selfish individual interests in Security council resolutions.
But whether you agree with me or not on the how, I am glad you agree with me that we, as Americans, need to care about the UN and instead of bashing it in, we need to help fix it from the inside.
Posted by theprisoner6
prisoner 6, I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond again.
While I do agree with the second part of your statement, "Why is the UN constantly the whipping boy of countries when they themselves should be held to blame for its failures?", I don't believe it should be fixed. I believe it should be dismantled completely. Yes there are useful components of it that could be preserved but the overall body is worthless and so would be anything that would replace it.
The whole world works on the principle of self-interest. It has to.
Posted by Matthew Peek
"The whole world works on the principle of self-interest. It has to. "
I don't agree with that statement. Call it idealism, call it faith in human good will. I think that statement is defeatist at best and doesn't give us anything useful to build upon. Admitting selfishness is not the same thing as embracing it as the only human emotion worth pandering to.
Posted by theprisoner6
Post a Comment
<< Home