United Nations was founded 63 years ago today. It arose out of the ashes of the Second World War, its foundations being laid both during the war and as a result of its predecessor the League of Nations.

In 3 years time this noble institution will be entitled to a State pension, in 7 years a Medical Card. What have we come to expect of this aging pensioner and where should it go from here - to the nursing home or a new lease of life? I hear 70 is the new 50.

I suspect it won't be getting a medical card, anyway.

THe UN has been hobbled by the US veto in the Security Council. How much longer will the US be able to pull that off now the country is broke?

Good thread, johnfás.

I suspect they can pull it off as long as they have the strongest military. The Security Council veto is certainly a huge problem in United Nations reform.

While they, and indeed others, hold an absolute veto it will continually erode the legitimacy and the functionality of the organisation. I think, whether they realise this or not, it will be to the detriment of the organisation and themselves. The system needs to be compromised with a system of weighted voting etc.

Anyone ever done a tour of the United Nations, either at New York or Geneva? Great fun!

Not been there yet. Always good to see what we are paying for, I think.

Economic/industrial and military power are very closely linked. There has never been a power that held on to military dominance whilst it was poor.
Unemployed people in the US don't want to and can't afford to pay vast sums for armies to occupy foreign territories.

I think that even nuclear weapons degrade somewhat, and may have a sell-by date after which you might want to risk using them.

They do have a sell by date. They tend to have complex decomissioning at the end of that period - can't remember how long it is but I know Britain is in a phase of decomissioning at the moment. That is why there was a controversy in Britain as to whether to replace them on decomissioning.

cactus flower wrote:

THe UN has been hobbled by the US veto in the Security Council. How much longer will the US be able to pull that off now the country is broke?

Good thread, johnfás.

I'd like to point out that other countries can hobble the UN too. And in cases like the Iraq war build-up a bit of hobbling from the Russians and Chinese did no harm at all.

I'm curious about the possibility of Scotland becoming independent and it's effect on the security council. Will the UK still get as much clout as they have now? Seeing as their influence survived the fall of the empire I'm inclined to think it will. This might help answer the question of the US' influence post-economic collapse (and let's not forget that the global market is a fair leveller. Russia, the UK nad France aren't going to come out of this much better than the Yanks. I'm not sure about China).

If certain countries were to lose some real influence I bet it wouldn't be long before Brazil, India and whoever else is on the waiting list got in. If the West was to lose out to Russia or China on the security council, they would weaken or dilute the power rather than hand over intact those pesky Easterns.

Scottish independence is more than a generation away, if not more, if ever. No amount of sabre rattling by Alex Salmond will change that.

The Russians kept some restraint on the US for many long years.

It is interesting that the focus is on the Far East today.

The United Nations needs to be reformed or it will just wither on the vine. The security council is the greatest promoter of inaction imaginable.

History will not and should not be kind. Rwanda (read Shake hands with the devil by Romeo Dallaire), Srebrencia, Somalia and Darfur all suggest that the UN in its current form is essentially useless. (I understand that I am taking a somewhat narrow view of the UNs mandate here). Cactus I don't understand your worldview at all. What do you mean the Russians kept some restraint on the US?

It is very easy to remember the UN's failures. What about their many successes? On balance, is the world better of worse for their being there?

Better. Despite the vast corruption within the organisation and its ineptitude in solving the world's political problems it has most certainly been a force for good in the world. The idea that we can have a binding international organisation, in the absence of what those of you who studied politics at university would know as a 'monopoly on violence', is illusionary. However, the organisation has served for much greater integration and cooperation in regard to going some way to solving many of the pressing issues of the world - despite its failures in many others.

The World Health Organisation, UNICEF, the United Nations Development Programme, all organs of the United Nations have been a general force for good in the world, despite numerous failures in all organisations.

How do we measure the success of such an organisation? It seems almost unquantifiable, akin to measuring the success of a State. Whilst it is clear cut in some situations, e.g. we now have better roads than we did 50 years ago, but in many other situations it is almost impossible. However, I do believe that the UN has been a much greater force for good than it has been a failure, or even a redundancy. The greatest challenge it has had in the last decade is overcoming the change in the post Cold War world. How it will adapt, I do not know, but I do know that it must or, as unaligned says, it will wither on the vine.

unaligned wrote:

The United Nations needs to be reformed or it will just wither on the vine. The security council is the greatest promoter of inaction imaginable.

History will not and should not be kind. Rwanda (read Shake hands with the devil by Romeo Dallaire), Srebrencia, Somalia and Darfur all suggest that the UN in its current form is essentially useless. (I understand that I am taking a somewhat narrow view of the UNs mandate here). Cactus I don't understand your worldview at all. What do you mean the Russians kept some restraint on the US?

Both the USA and USSR used vetos to support their own foreign policy - the USSR frequently in the 1950s-1980s and the US much more since then. Russian foreign policy was based on Stalin's theory that it was possible to have socialism in one country and peaceful relations with capitalist states. In general though the SU also supported liberation movements and resisted UN membership by de facto colonies of the UK and USA. The USSR gave aid and arms to liberation movements, albeit to some extent in the interests of its own strategic influence and security.
Up until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, the S.U. in general used veto and threat of veto in favour of independence movements/ new governments and against intervention by the western powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_and_the_United_Nations.

My world view would favour national liberation and the right of nations to self-determination. Whilst the SU governments were in my view cynical, self serving and wrong-headed in their relations with other countries, the USSR would have in general supported national liberation movements, partly because of their tactical requirements but also partly because the USSR was based on social ownership of land and industry, which had its origin in social revolution.

This is an example of the US using its veto, after it illegally invaded Grenada and toppled its socialist government.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE1DD1739F931A35752C1A965948260