Talk:United Nations/opinions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] UN's effectiveness
Who here thinks that the UN has outlived it's purposes and needs to be disbanded?? LordRevan 05:04 Febuary 2 2006 (UTC)
- A recent worldwide survey shows that people with a positive view of the UN far outnumber those with a negative view almost anywhere in the world. Since the UN fulfills a vast array of badly needed roles in dozens of locations around the world, I'm curious as to what/who, in your view, should fulfill those roles instead?--Dorond 22:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
For your information, the media likes to omit certan things from the news, like the widespread corruption within the highest levels of the UN. It took me a year before I heard anything about the Oil-for-food scandal. So it is not surprising that many people do not know the truth about these matters. Second of all, many of these third-world member countries are governed by corrupt, authoritarian governements, that use their "third-world country" statis to pay as little to the UN as possible. Here is a reliable source link, [1], that comes from the mind of Stefan Halper, a former State Department and White House official, who elaborates on the ineffectiveness and wide spread corruption within the UN. Also, it is nice to know that Congress at least knows about the widespread corruption, why do you think they cut the budget size they give to the UN. And for your last question above, I think that the United States is doing a far better job than the UN is doing right now. My goal, is to try to bring guidance into your blind world, but as it is, the blind want to keep stumbling around while watching CNN. LordRevan 5:39 Febuary 6 2006 (UTC)
- I concur. I think that suggestion is quite extreme. I can't imagine what chaos would erupt if the UN is disbanded. Without it, countries wouldn't have to answer to a council to account for their actions...--202.156.6.54 15:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
We in the United States have a right to question the UN's legitimacy, more so than all of the other member countries, seeing how we taxpayers pay for 22% of the UN's budget. This is not including the other two areas that we pay in, Peacekeeping and Donations. It perplexes me that so many of you editors, with your extensive knowledge, that you are unwilling to see the truth, even if it landed right into your lap. It does say in the Bible that God uses the simple things to confound the wise. LordRevan 17:11 Febuary 6 2006 (UTC) [2] [3]
- It's really rather pointless, not to mention inappropriate, to register personal views on the validity or otherwise of the UN here- this is not what the talk page (or wikipedia) is for. Unless you've some substantive comment to make on the actual text of the article itself, whether or not you personally happen to care for the institution, is completely irrelevant and rather uninteresting. See WP:NOT if in any doubt. There's any number of other spaces, blogs, etc where you can opine ad nauseam about this or any other topic; kindly use these and not wikipedia.--cjllw | TALK 02:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
U.S. pay for 22% of the UN budget yet U.S. is the dominant as an "indirect" result.(80.154.37.132 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC))
[edit] The United Nation's War Against Israel
Hi guys, I found this article on the internet: The United Nation's War Against Israel. Maybe you should link it in the WP article. --84.146.157.165 11:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe not. The article is narrow and extremely spurious Zleitzen 10 March 2006
Its not so much the UN staff or those with power, but mostly the large number of Muslim nations that contribute to the Anti-Semitism policies from the UN. LordRevan 00:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please re-read the comment made by CJLL above which stated "It's really rather pointless, not to mention inappropriate, to register personal views on the validity or otherwise of the UN here". It is not clear whether you understood this. --Zleitzen 13:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
???. And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China. My comment, if you actually look into it, bears much evidence. LordRevan 01:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please read the Wikipedia Guidlines WP:NOT which states the following
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox
- Concerning Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia
- Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge.
- Please avoid breaching those guidelines. Thank You.--Zleitzen 03:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Now I see why the other guy did not want to give his name out. LordRevan 03:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- The U.S. owns the U.N. and the U.S. owns Israel. They would not allow it. It's like what if the Jews were on Hitlers side? Now we know.
-G Sheesh what a load of *&&^% above here eh?
Maybe get this on topic by discussing the fact that much of what the UN is mandated to do is put forward and voted on by the constituant states. The policies thus often reflect the consenus of those member states. With regards to "hot" items like Israel, many policies may, in fact, be dominated by the majority opinion of a "block" of countries in the assembly. Hurkummer
[edit] Security Council Permanent Members criticism
could we,by chance, mention the fact that the 5 permanent members of the Security-council who are meant to maintain "security and peace" are the 5 main countries distibuting illegal arms to the poorer countries--- woohoo...the un has saved us all!!!
- Well, we should hardly add content by chance ;-). If you think you can make an informative NPOV subsection out of this, please do -- just don't forget to cite sources and present their content with impartiality (you will want to leave out the woos and the hoos). --Swift 19:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] UN is the most incompetent organization in history
-it has never prevented a war -it has never prevented a civil war (there are at least a dozen in Africa going on as of may 2006) -it has never prevented a genocide (Cambodia, former Yugoslavia, Ruanda and right now: Darfur) -it has never prevented ethnic cleansing -it has never prevented hunger
The corruption and incompetence of the UN cannot possibly be exaggerated. The organization simply does not work. The UN criticizes only the USA and Israel and blatantly ignores serial violations of human rights in China, Syria, Egypt, Arabia, all islamic states (who all ignore provisions on equal rights for women) etc...
Why is there no outcry in the world against such incompetence and why don't we abolish the UN? --82.156.49.1 10:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It should be abolished,nations should negotiate one on one,not through an organisation that issues ultimatums and sends in an army if you don't do what it says. Dudtz 6/2/06 6:27 PM EST
- If you want to carry on discussing your own personal, non-notable views on the matter, why not go and set up a blog somewhere else where you can opine as much as you've the stomach for. Wikipedia, and this talk page in particular, is not the place for vox-pop scribblings such as these.--cjllw | TALK 01:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- The UN is definitely not a total failure. It had important impact on the development of human rights; it successfully managed the problems of decolonialization in the 1950s and 60s; and it works fine as a forum for international talks. It did not prevent every war that ever menaced international peace, but without it, I bet there would have been more than there were in reality. It definitely worked better than the League of Nations.
I agree with everyone but Cjll. First not everyone have to speak in a very formal language if they want to speak their ideas in order to display some certain FACTS like the genocides that could have been prevented. UN as far as I know has a fundamental dictating that no GENOCIDES shall occure. In a very politic way of manner, or God like. UN have made great effort to improve the conditions of poor and engaged peace keeping missions yet UN made such failures that these faults cannot be considered as minor. They are funadmental faults, they are rather ERRORS which means that UN constitution should be questioned very seriously. For me UN is no more than a charity work. Bitter truth...(cantikadam 16:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC))
- you forgot to mention that everytime the UN tries to do something radical it gets vetoed
[edit] United Nations or Utopian Notion?
Well, the choice you make will depend on your constitution.
If you are a cynic, you would go for the “Utopian Notion” hypothesis. Otherwise, we all know that the UN is the best “Hope in the Time of Hostilities”.
The United Nations Organization (UNO), as it was named then, when formed on 24th October 1945 with 51 member states post WWII, seemed to be the only logical step towards preventing the world from further disintegration and in containing the misplaced sense of power and authority of some of the world’s colonizing nations. Since then it has worked well, if not extraordinarily well.
Today the United Nations' (UN) membership stands at 192 which in itself is a certificate for its role and relevance.
The role of the UN spans from peace and security to economic and social development to human rights to humanitarian efforts to international laws. There is no part of life which is untouched by this organization in today’s world.
The world of today is grappling with the “problems without passports” (to quote Kofi Annan - Shashi Tharoor) which transcend borders and continents and impact every sphere of existence of every individual whether he/she is from the “developed”, “developing” or for that matter, from the “under-developed” part of our planet. These are: terrorism, international crimes, conflicts, AIDS, drug trafficking, human trafficking, epidemics, famine, poverty, genocide, refugees, and environmental concerns, to name a few.
And, to deal with this spectrum of problems, only an international organization like the UN with international outlook and policies and more than six decades of experience in international diplomacy and governance would be effective.
Looking into the UN’s past accomplishments, it would be no exaggeration to state that it has succeeded in averting this earth from turning into hell for many if not altogether making it a heaven for all. Its notable contributions have been in the fields of peacekeeping and refugees’ resettlement, and not to forget its commitments towards international law, international security, economic development and social equity.
In fact in the present times of substantial escalation in humanitarian crises all across the globe, the United Nations’ indispensability becomes all the more apparent.
Nevertheless, the UN requires reforms relating to the geo-political realities of 2006, and a “suitable talent” at its helm (as the next UNSG) who can balance continuity with changes.
Let’s keep this hope alive before hostilities relegate homo-sapiens into history…
[edit] The Suitable Man
‘Straying straws of the poll, who is suitablest of them all?’…
“Straw polls” and subsequent voting in the ongoing selection (or election?) for the next United-Nations-Secretary-General have left me perplexed. Is there a guarantee with this procedure that “The Suitable Man” will get picked up for the topmost diplomatic position in the world?
While scanning candidature of the officially announced candidates so far, Shashi Tharoor surfaces as “The Suitable Man” for the post. Why and how? Well, I think perhaps in our hearts we already know the answer.
Shashi Tharoor is the only contender with almost 3 decades of work experience with the UN and is well versed with the functioning of this global governing body. The reforms carried out by him in his Department-of-Public-Information-and-Communications as its current Under-Secretary-General speak spectacularly about his competency. This proves his capability to handle 192 heads of states in making them converge on diverse issues concerning welfare of the world, and bring about the required reforms related to the geo-political realities of 2006 by balancing changes with continuity.
Moreover, Shashi Tharoor’s ‘adventure with Indian pluralism’ as an Indian supplements his suitability to administer the UN which is so similar to India in its constitution: of being singular while remaining plural. With his belief in ‘a world safe for diversity’, he is most likely to emerge as a worthy successor to Kofi Annan, and thereby, succeed in retaining the relevance of the UN in the time of radicalism.
Being an author-diplomat also complements Shashi Tharoor’s candidacy. In his work he is sure to espouse the same supreme sensitivity towards the ‘larger idea of humanity’ which he has shown in his writings, though they have been exclusively about India and Indians. This is plausible because of his ability to inhabit alternate spaces simultaneously: living as an ‘Indian’ author with his idea of ‘an India for Indians’ while managing myriad matters of the world as an international diplomat.
These are precisely the merits which make Shashi Tharoor “The Suitable Man” to adorn the Top-Seat as the next UNSG and do justice to probably the ‘most impossible job on earth’!
See, I had told you we already knew the answer to our question :-)
[edit] Senseless Series of Straw Polls
‘The Da Vinci Code’ had left me perplexed about the Pope’s selection process and I am getting the same feeling following this senseless series of straw polls to select a suitable Secretary General at the UN. Wonder if the topmost diplomatic seat would get ‘the suitable’ man / woman to adorn it.
Currently there are 6 official candidates in the fray. More are in the offing to join as the rounds progress. Before dissecting each candidate’s candidacy, I would like to harp on the selection process. The ‘idea’ of a regional candidate in itself is idiotic. When we are looking for an able administrator for a global governing body as important as the UN, from where does the question arise of a ‘regional candidate’? Shouldn’t we rather be searching for ‘the suitable' man / woman at the helm?
But what makes a man or woman ‘suitable’?
As per the definition of the post, the UNSG is an administrator - a CEO (to use the corporate world’s parlance). And to be able to qualify as an able administrator, the candidate needs to have the first hand experience of the working culture of this colossal corpus.
The UNSG also needs to be a dexterous diplomat with the competency to get the 192 member states converge on diverse international issues. By a diplomat I certainly do not mean a politician – head of state or a minister – who would find himself / herself seriously inept in carrying out such crucial chores.
So, the UNSG would essentially be dealing with people – people working in the organization and people in the member states. And as we know, to be an effective administrator, the person needs to be an effective communicator.
Therefore, when we conclude who is ‘suitable’ and who is not as the UNSG, we compare candidates on these considerations, no matter from which ‘region’ of the world he / she comes from. This leaves us with just one candidate in the current crowd and that person is Shashi Tharoor.
Shashi Tharoor has been with the UN for almost three decades now, participating in its working from bottom-up, successfully handling various responsibilities ranging from refugees resettlement to peacekeeping to public affairs. And nobody can ever question his communication skills. My vote goes out for this author-diplomat!
So I am not wasting my time preparing a comparative chart as this is certainly not a selection of ‘The First Amongst The Equals’. Nevertheless, I am still trying to make sense of this senseless series of straw polls to select the ‘suitable’ UNSG.
- Wikipedia is not a political discussion forum. Factual answers might be found at United Nations Secretary-General and factual questions can be asked on the Wikipedia:Reference desk.
