Pro/Forums - View Single Post

TerraMex · 03-21-2003, 01:41 AM

There is a general misconception on what the UN is or what it does.

Simplyfing things a bit:

The UN exists as a base of discussion on general issues between countrys, global issues and promote understanding and peacefull solutions to problems. It also has a set os rules and resolutions focused on those issues. The members agreed to operate in those rules.

But those understandings and solutions are done and agreed between member countrys. The UN operates mainly as a mediator, as an inspector and a regulator. It does not impose . Those agreements are done through the UN, with the support of the UN's infrastructures, but always depending on those supporting countrys. Without that support, the UN doesnt do jack. And thats why everybody keeps "flaming" them. But they're not a country, or a military organization, they're a political organization .

In case of failure , there are diplomatic bonds that keeps things under discussion in the UN between the target countrys. In other cases, exists the securty council. The Security Council works on an agreement between those countrys and then THEY can impose a resolution, as a whole, not as the UN. Those countrys then support , and have active role in maintaining those resolutions. Again, through the UN. But always depending on those supporting countrys.

The remaining infrastructures are more turned to diplomatic relations, giving aid, research and development to global problems, etc. and open to every member and always free for debate.

So, i have to say , the UN is only as good as you make it. And it has his part on the world's politics and agreements.

Doing a correlation with the current events, as the USA and UK (and a few others) circunvented the UN, the "tab" will without a doubt be picked up mainly by those two countrys. In the previous gulf war, the tab was split between the rest of the security council that participated in the war, such as the french and german.

Again, the UN did not have a operation in Iraq then, those countrys had a joint operation, agreeded upon in the UN, and with the aval of the security council, and thus, of the UN and respective majority members.

I hope i made sense

.

03-21-2003, 01:41 AM	#13
TerraMex Cooling Savant Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Portugal, Europe Posts: 870	There is a general misconception on what the UN is or what it does. Simplyfing things a bit: The UN exists as a base of discussion on general issues between countrys, global issues and promote understanding and peacefull solutions to problems. It also has a set os rules and resolutions focused on those issues. The members agreed to operate in those rules. But those understandings and solutions are done and agreed between member countrys. The UN operates mainly as a mediator, as an inspector and a regulator. It does not impose . Those agreements are done through the UN, with the support of the UN's infrastructures, but always depending on those supporting countrys. Without that support, the UN doesnt do jack. And thats why everybody keeps "flaming" them. But they're not a country, or a military organization, they're a political organization . In case of failure , there are diplomatic bonds that keeps things under discussion in the UN between the target countrys. In other cases, exists the securty council. The Security Council works on an agreement between those countrys and then THEY can impose a resolution, as a whole, not as the UN. Those countrys then support , and have active role in maintaining those resolutions. Again, through the UN. But always depending on those supporting countrys. The remaining infrastructures are more turned to diplomatic relations, giving aid, research and development to global problems, etc. and open to every member and always free for debate. So, i have to say , the UN is only as good as you make it. And it has his part on the world's politics and agreements. Doing a correlation with the current events, as the USA and UK (and a few others) circunvented the UN, the "tab" will without a doubt be picked up mainly by those two countrys. In the previous gulf war, the tab was split between the rest of the security council that participated in the war, such as the french and german. Again, the UN did not have a operation in Iraq then, those countrys had a joint operation, agreeded upon in the UN, and with the aval of the security council, and thus, of the UN and respective majority members. I hope i made sense . __________________ "we need more cowbell."