Tomas Iturregui
The United Nations is an
intergovernmental organization that aims to promote cooperation between its
member states while looking out for the well being of them. It was a
replacement for the League of Nations which failed to do its main job which was
to prevent any further wars from happening such as World War Two. Many argue
that the United Nations is ineffective at solving problems, but I think it
should continue to exist because it serves various important purposes and at
the very least makes an effort to solve many of the problems of its member
states.
The UN consists of now 193 member
states and is financed by donations from its member states. It accepts any
state that is willing to accept the obligations presented in the charter. As
long as a state is open to peace and open to accepting the terms the UN puts
before them, they can join.
The main goals of the UN include maintaining international peace, promoting human
rights, fostering social and economic development, protecting the environment,
and providing humanitarian aid. Basically the UN is looking out for all
potential issues a state could encounter. Often times a state cannot deal with
a large issue such as a natural disaster on its own, so it helps to be part of
an institution such as the UN. Obviously the UN is not capable of solving every
problem of every member state, but it can help with many of them. At the very
least it does not hurt to be part of the UN.
Peacekeeping is one of the main
objectives the UN has. It does not have a military, so volunteer troops are
necessary from member states. The UN sends in thousands of troops to different
locations worldwide every year. In 2013 they had soldiers on fifteen different
missions. These missions are especially important in third world countries or
weak states who are unstable and need international assistance. That’s why the
largest mission of 2013 involved over 20,000 troops being deployed in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo to help with the war. Furthermore, the UN also
focuses on human rights. In 1948 the General Assembly created a universal
declaration of human rights which emphasizes the need for basic civil rights
fro all humans. An example of this was after World War Two when the UN created
a couple bodies whose main goal were to improve women’s rights. Moreover, a few
years ago the UN passed a declaration which recognized the rights of the LGBTQ
community for the first time. The UN also helps with humanitarian assistance.
It has organizations such as the World Health Organization and the World Food
Program which help with humanitarian efforts. The UN has helped in cases such
as the Haitian earthquake and the crisis in Syria.
The United Nations has existed for
over a half century. There are many critics that say it does not do enough to
help certain states. But the reality is that’s unrealistic. The UN is not a saving
grace for every state in distress, but it can help with many problems that
member states face such as peacekeeping, human rights issues, and humanitarian
aid and therefore should continue to exist.
I completely agree with your argument but I think what you're missing is that people say the Security Council doesn't do the job it's set up for. Peace-keeping, humanitarian troubles, women's rights, etc. are all things the UN actually does a good job at. If we separated the Security Council out of that, what do you think about the Council? Is it just as effective or do you think differently? Personally I think the UN as a whole does some good things, but the Security Council only furthers the issues that matter to the big 5. Just wondering what you think!
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that the security council is seen as ineffective and that it only concentrates on issues pertaining to the big 5. I think taking out the security council could resolve some issues and allow the UN to focus more on countries that need more attention. I think the main problem though is that there are over 190 member states, so it is difficult to for the UN to help solve problems for all those countries. Therefore I don't think that too much blame can be put on the security council.
DeleteIn my opinion, a very important question to ask is weather or not the U.N. is the best option available to advance various U.S. goals? The U.S. pays more than 178 other U.N. member states combined and 22,000 times more than the least assessed countries. Are American taxpayers getting value for their money?
ReplyDeleteWell if the US is paying that much more than every other country, then no they are not getting value for their money especially since the money is not going towards their direct interests. On the flip side though, it could be seen that the US is furthering their interests indirectly by helping out other member states with their problems which can improve relations or further them.
DeleteDo you consider there to be favoritism within the United Nations? After all, the Security council has the right to veto proposals, and has even been reported to conduct impromptu negotiations prior to the actual UN meetings. Would this favoritism not then entail a biased, ranked list of issues that need to be considered and dealt with? If members of the Security Council are aligned with smaller nations, or see potential economic benefit to keeping small nations in social/political order, would this mean that countries of less value to Security Council states are ignored?
ReplyDeleteI agree that the U.N. is incapable of solving all of the worlds problems and should not be looked upon as an organization that does not actually care about the crisis's occurring in its member states. However, I do believe that there are some major bureaucratic dilemma's that are taking place in branches of the United Nations, such as the Security Council, that prevents the U.N. from being as helpful as it could be. Let me know if you have any thoughts on this?
ReplyDelete