Talk:United Nations/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Moved from Talk:United Nations. This is the archive for that Talk page to mid-2004.

There is no mention that the United Nations tends towards following/advocating socialist policies.

There is no mention that the United Nations tends towards establishing judical/legal orginizations superior to and able to punish individual country governments.

Add them, then. I don't mean to be glib, but I just put the text there because it was available and unencumbered by IP laws. I am by no means an expert on the subject. --KQ

I disagree at least on the first point that it should be added. That the United Nations follow/advocate socialist policies is a matter of interpretation/opinion, not of fact, in my opinion. -- Andre Engels

I"ve added a lot to this page from http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2001/index.cfm?docid=4842 but left out a longish section on the U.S. role in U.N. business because it's written from a blatantly smug U.S. point of view. I'll paste it below for anyone who cares to add it, if anyone does. It can probably be rewritten from something closer to NPOV. --KQ

  • The U.S., as the world's leading political, economic, and military power, has an especially strong interest in cooperating with the multilateral system. The U.S. can pursue many of its interests more effectively and with less risk through the UN than it can by acting alone. Examples include: containing the spread of weapons of mass destruction; enforcing sanctions on pariah states such as Iraq; protecting the environment (ozone depletion, acid rain, climate change, deforestation); and combating international crime, drug trafficking, and terrorism.
  • Engagement in the UN pays significant dividends to Americans in the form of a safer, more prosperous world. The UN offers a unique forum for advancing U.S. foreign policy objectives. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the U.S. plays a leading role in the UN's efforts to maintain international peace, promote democracy, and defend human rights. UN peacekeeping gives the U.S. a way to protect American interests in circumstances where either acting alone or doing nothing is unacceptable. UN mediation and preventive diplomacy efforts can provide an internationally acceptable setting in which nations can move away from rigid negotiating positions and begin to seek solutions to their problems.
  • The multilateral system also provides a powerful platform for advancing U.S. values and ideals in such areas as human rights, free trade, labor standards, and public health. UN programs also try to meet humanitarian needs for those disadvantaged by circumstances beyond their control. Private charitable agencies rely on the multiple capacities of the UN system to develop the infrastructure and political climate required for the success of such programs. UN activities such as UNICEF, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and the World Food Program have made a remarkable impact on the lives of those most at risk around the globe: children, women, and refugees.
  • UN programs serve U.S. objectives by promoting free-market reform in the developing world. Those countries purchase more than one-third of the goods and services exported by our nation. Supporting economic development gives the U.S. more prosperous trading partners that are better able to import U.S. goods and less likely to "export" their own people to U.S. shores. To reduce global poverty, the UN attempts to help developing nations meet basic human needs (clean water, food, shelter, and health care) and other development goals.
  • In today's interdependent world, there is a clear need for multilateral bodies to set regulatory standards and arbitrate differences among countries in areas such as food product safety, air safety, telecommunications, and copyrights. For example, the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization have set food product safety and quality standards worldwide through a jointly sponsored trade standardization program called "Codex Alimentarius." There are many direct benefits to our participation in the multilateral system. For example, a large part of U.S. financial contributions to the UN is returned to U.S. companies through sales of equipment, supplies, and consulting services.
  • The U.S. cannot rely solely on bilateral relations to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives but must take advantage of our participation in the UN in order to influence other governments' opinions and policies. Moreover, every dollar that we contribute to UN activities is matched by $3 to $10 given by others. This advances our interests while spreading the cost among other nations.
  • It is important that the UN operate efficiently and effectively. The U.S. seeks a UN that both gets back to basics and is ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century. U.S. efforts include:
    • Program Oversight --Following up on creation of the Office of Internal Oversight Services at UN headquarters, the U.S. is working to expand the inspector general concept to the UN's major specialized agencies;
    • Reducing Bureaucracies--Important progress has been made in streamlining the UN personnel system and holding the line on budgets;
    • Improving Management --The U.S. applauds the initiatives of Secretary General Annan in consolidating programs and implementing a more transparent and consultative approach to management;
    • Security Council Reform --The U.S. supports permanent seats on the Security Council for Japan and Germany and a modest further enlargement of the Council to include permanent seats for developing nations from Asia, Africa, and Latin America;
    • Improving Responsiveness--The U.S. seeks a UN able to respond to humanitarian crises more rapidly and effectively;
    • Scale of Assessments--The U.S. has worked for a revision of the scale of assessments to make it better reflect current global circumstances.
  • The U.S. has welcomed the further initiative undertaken by Secretary General Annan in July 1997 in putting forward specific reform proposals for member state consideration. These proposals closely parallel recommendations that the U.S. has made, and the U.S. is working for the adoption of most of them as early as possible.
  • U.S. Representation
  • The U.S. Permanent Mission to the UN in New York is headed by the U.S. Representative to the UN, with the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. The mission serves as the channel of communication for the U.S. Government with the UN organs, agencies, and commissions at the UN headquarters and with the other permanent missions accredited to the UN and the non-member observer missions. The U.S. mission has a professional staff made up largely of career Foreign Service officers, including specialists in political, economic, social, financial, legal, and military issues.
  • The U.S. also maintains missions to international organizations in Geneva, Rome, Vienna, Nairobi, Montreal, London, and Paris. These missions report to the Department of State and receive guidance on questions of policy from the President, through the Secretary of State. Relations with the UN and its family of agencies are coordinated by the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs.
  • The U.S. Mission to the United Nations is located at 799 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017 (tel. 212-415-4000).

I disagree with the way every political article seems to have some tagged-on bit at the end about why or how evil old America is in some way responsible for screwing up everything. Can't we just have a fair, NPOV article explaining how an organization functions without always having to give the United States a trial in the process? user:J.J.

Unfortunately once you step outside the United States you discover that there are many people who want to point out the errors of the United States, is it notNPOV to discuss these errors? Most encyclopedias want to be so general that they don't ruffle anyone's feathers, the beauty of Wikipedia IMHO is that an article can bring forth the limitations of particular partial points of view. Of course such a thing is much more difficult in practice than in theory as who decides what an NPOV is, however it is an interesting type of mediation process. Perhaps we will discover some facts here? Alex756 01:46 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

To perceive 'giving the United States a trial' as being an underlying purpose of this article is rather unfortunate, because too many citizens of the United States seem to have a martyr complex with their country. As an American myself, I see nothing in the article that attempts to 'blame America for screwing up everything'. While I personally feel that the United States has a track record of apathy about world problems, while concentrating overmuch on business interests, this is hardly a POV I a see reflected in the article.

Could somebody please add something about structure and history of UN peacekeeping efforts? (I am not qualified to do so.) It seems to me that this has been one of the UN's more visible activities.

I have had a go at fixing some of this article's more obvious deficiencies. It suffers from having been copied directly from the US State Department website. I have tried to rewrite the bits I know something about in NPOV-speak, but someone else will have to tackle the UN Agencies and Peacekeeping sections. There would be a good case for moving the "Reforming the UN" section to the end. Other opinions? Dr Adam Carr 10:32, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Rewrote the Taiwan section. First of all, it is not clear that the ROC government on Taiwan now claims authority over Mainland China or has done so since 1991. Second, the argument that an declaration of independence by Taiwan would help its entry into the UN needed to be NPOV'ized.

Roadrunner

I removed the statement that the only internationally recognized states not in the UN are the ROC and Vatican. What is the criteria for determining whether a state is "internationally recognized" and "sovereign"? Take a look at List_of_countries and you will see some exceptions. Perhaps those exceptions should be removed from that list. --Jiang 20:11, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What about some reference to the members of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation, many of which are not represented at the UN? Alex756 07:47, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Lions were not the only group that help to build the UN. What about the CFR?

JLE

OK, the entire "reformation of the UN" section is bullshit, in the sense that its basically interpretation and "independent research", which is specifically prohibited by Wikipedia. I'm not just complaining about framing discussion in how it adversely affects the united states of america, but additionally hypothetical crap like "what the UN would have to do for blah blah blah to happen. It's not NPOV, and is basically new research. Poor and somewhat biased research at that.

--Alan D

This bathroom stall partition graffiti is strangely applicable to "Human Rights and the UN": "You don't know anything about the 410... Roll through any turf and see if you can say this sh*t." -Anonymous, regarding the following:"San Francisco: Sucka Free, but not Faggot [sic, meaning homosexual male] free."

That's right, roll through any turf and see if you can say this, it don't make a difference whether the turf is Aceh, Papua, Tibet, Algeria, Somalia, Guantanamo Bay, southeastside Turkey with the Kurds, or Iraq. The CPA (Coalition Provisional "Authority") in Iraq is so cowardly that the black market is a location right next to the cop shop, and the city is dissapearing right under their noses 'cause even the bricks are looted. If anyone wants sources, just go to google.com, amnesty.org, hell, for the Indonesia thing even the catalogue for weapons fas.org.

The United Nations is just that: the united nations. Just about every recognized nation-state is in there, just about every nation-state vigorously disregards human rights. Dead Mao's China, Vietnam protester airstriking France, Yemen

As desirable it is to ["rewrite history"], and deny my comments, seeing as they were deleted as vandalism, it would be more ethical to just apologize. There is now one offensive comment on each side of this debate.

The United Nations does not support human rights.

Oh. they weren't deleted.

The summary of my last edit stated that I was removing something that was true, but POV and written badly. After rereading it, I've realised that part of it actually wasn't true. So it's still gone. --Caliper 20:08, 14 May 2004 (UTC)