I've decided to throw the question out there and see what happens. Personally, I think that the UN is only as good as what the member countries put into it (i.e. the United States don't pay their dues to the organization until a few years later). Plus, a lot of what UNICEF, the UNHCR and the UN Commission on Refugees does gets little media attention, whilst Security Council wrangles and failures do.
Originally posted by DOlivier2004It's the only United Nations we've got, so we'd better make the best of it. The most important issue in my view is to stimulate the democracy proces within the member states and within the UN organisation itself.
I've decided to throw the question out there and see what happens. Personally, I think that the UN is only as good as what the member countries put into it (i.e. the United States don't pay their dues to the organization until a few years later). Plus, a lot of what UNICEF, the UNHCR and the UN Commission on Refugees does gets little media attention, whilst Security Council wrangles and failures do.
Originally posted by zambezi2limpopoPractically all the countries are members of the UN, barring one or two. I think all you have to do is pay some dues, and that's about it, I think, unless someone can add something else.
whats the entry criterion for the united nations guys - is it free for all or some special hurdles to be jumped. i cant remember seeing any country on the waiting list like turkey with the eu
Originally posted by checkbaiterYou get a rec...
Zip, zero, nada. Waste of time and money...besides most of them hate our guts....we should send them to Iran or Afganistan, anywhere but NY. Then at least we won't have to worry about the spying, "diplomatic immunity"(loop hole while they break our laws), and footing most of the cost.
Originally posted by checkbaiterSo, are you saying that the $3bn contribution that the US pays every year is a waste of money? Where its contribution funds 48% of the World Food Programme and 41% of the High Commission for Refugees, amongst others?
Zip, zero, nada. Waste of time and money...besides most of them hate our guts....we should send them to Iran or Afganistan, anywhere but NY. Then at least we won't have to worry about the spying, "diplomatic immunity"(loop hole while they break our laws), and footing most of the cost.
Besides, every country spies, every country has some form of diplomatic immunity when they have embassies in other countries, that won't change if the UN is forced to leave the US.
Originally posted by DOlivier2004Pretty much, yes. I do not believe the money ends up where it should, most of the spying is here...and as far as the United Nations, they are anything but united, except they are in agreement of their hatred towards the U.S.
So, are you saying that the $3bn contribution that the US pays every year is a waste of money? Where its contribution funds 48% of the World Food Programme and 41% of the High Commission for Refugees, amongst others?
Besides, every country spies, every country has some form of diplomatic immunity when they have embassies in other countries, that won't change if the UN is forced to leave the US.
Originally posted by checkbaiterAs long as you're in the US, can you blame them?
Pretty much, yes. I do not believe the money ends up where it should, most of the spying is here...and as far as the United Nations, they are anything but united, except they are in agreement of their hatred towards the U.S.
Originally posted by checkbaiterI believe that some of that money may go to some corrupt officials, so I agree with you in part. But to simply cancel the UN membership, not pay dues, not support the ongoing global humanitarian efforts that only the UN has the infrastructure and the will to perform, is just plain stupid. You think the US is getting some stick now, you just wait until they decide to leave the UN. They'd be labeled (rightly) as an arrogant superpower that has no concern for the rest of the world. The UN is an opportunity to wield soft power (thorugh diplomacy and engagement) rather than hard power. The US does show disdain for the UN, but it would be foolish for them to leave it altogether. And as the major contributor to the UN, they have the right to press for reforms of the system. (They aren't doing well in this category. I chalk it up to disdain and incompetence).
Pretty much, yes. I do not believe the money ends up where it should, most of the spying is here...and as far as the United Nations, they are anything but united, except they are in agreement of their hatred towards the U.S.
I can think of at least one country that doesn't hate the US, but then that's somewhat irrelevant. The US is No 1 in this era, and countries will hate them simply because they are No 1. It won't stop them from doing business with them.
Originally posted by DOlivier2004Well, there is nothing niether you nor I can do about it, we can only hope and pray.....🙂
I believe that some of that money may go to some corrupt officials, so I agree with you in part. But to simply cancel the UN membership, not pay dues, not support the ongoing global humanitarian efforts that only the UN has the infrastructure and the will to perform, is just plain stupid. You think the US is getting some stick now, you just wait unti ...[text shortened]... will hate them simply because they are No 1. It won't stop them from doing business with them.
Whilst the US is marshalled by democarcies such as the UN, I imagine
other (growing) superpowers such as China may be a little less
inclined to bolster their defences against potential imminent attacks.
This could slow the arms race significantly enough for funds to be
spent on aid and governance in third world countries.
Furthermore, the UN as a collection of nations is far better placed to
provide this funding and ensure that it reaches those in need without
being diluted too much by internal corruption.