VERSIONS: روسيا اليوم NOTICIAS FREEVIDEO ИНОТВ RTД RSS FIND US ON: YouTube Twitter
On Air Where to Watch Schedule 
breakingnews
Go to main page   Community   Forums   Top News   Does the UN have a future or is it rusty and dead?  
   
Does the UN have a future or is it rusty and dead?
Roman 28 March, 2008, 11:39 It is rusty, but still worth of use and renovation. Number of countries with veto holding powers should be increased with e.g. India, Brazil and South Africa, to better represent actual world community. Also, unilateral actions of member-states without Security Council approval, that breach international law, should be more rigorously sanctioned.
quote
0
johann 28 March, 2008, 11:58 Yes,is it rusty and dead.The UN is for a time a playground for US interests and his allies,making the small countries to belive that their voices are being taken into consideration,practically is a cinical joke.There are countries who have comitted grave war crimes and the UNSC has washed them clean several times and is continuing to do so.The question is why the countries whom belive and want real justice accept this status quo,they should join their forces and aspirations to form a new UN for example in Geneva.There have been so mny illegalities comitted in the name of UN,for now the credibillity is gone for ever,just wait and wait maybe some UFO will help us.because people are impotent in front of violence.Mankind is loosing his face,we are to lasy to confront the real danger,postponing it every day,until it is to late.
quote
0
zoki 28 March, 2008, 12:17 UN is instrument in hand of America
quote
0
isino 28 March, 2008, 12:36 As we i remember the UN establish after Collapsed of the League of Nation in the aftermath of WW2,It was are disaster in Europe, now look how the UN conduct its Peace Process in the Balkan War and Africa; another mess and unreliable effort, perhaps its Policy will ignite more tension an division amongst People.
quote
0
Vijay 28 March, 2008, 14:54 There's a determined/malicious effort on from certain quarters to undermine the UN! There's talk of 'League of "Democratic" Nations'. There's open flouting of all recognized Laws/UN regulations (Bosnia/Serbia/Iraq etc). Reforms are long overdue - especially of UNSC - replacement of some members, not expansion is required, since unwarranted expansion would make it even more clumsy/slow. Certain militarized groups/even economic organizations talk/act on setting up of parallel organizations. UN is primarily a talking shop, dominated by certain powers, which have no consideration for the 90% of the world's population and easily more than 60% of the world's output/markets! Either the UN (the closest thing to a world Govt.) must be reformed.and fast.or it may just die a natural death.to be replaced by regional councils/blocs/power centers! Furthermore, certain smaller countries have started fearing regarding their independence/territorial integrity and thus we have relentless arms build up/even nuclear proliferation. Perhaps that is what certain people want?
quote
0
Norman 28 March, 2008, 19:10 The United Nations has some great and important debates, true. Yet it rarily has the teeth to back them up. The United Nations success depends on how united the countries are- often, not very united!
quote
0
Choudhary 29 March, 2008, 00:57 I agree that United Nation got no future. UN is a tool for richer nations to pressurize poor nations in order to keep there dominance. UN have failed to act in many instances where it should have, like in Kashmir, UN resolution of giving right of self determination still never been implemented.
quote
0
olga 29 March, 2008, 02:27 Hi, everyone. As a response for your question, personally, I think, that the situation with the UN is really terrible. What it does? Nothing! At first, Until it is under financial control of one super-country it is can not be independent. Secondly, established to maintain the peace around the world it does not have real power to do it, earthier financially or politically. Besides, surrounded by constantly going on pecuniary and political scandals. it has become very heavy bureaucratic structure that need to be paid, Different governments use the membership on it for the, actually, lobbying owns’ political or economical interests. So, in that condition , in which the UN is now it is dead and rusty. To say that it can not be improved, say nothing. It can but……and this thoughts for the politicians.
quote
0
Ivan Horton 29 March, 2008, 02:52 UN is dead: it has failed to protect its member states. In 1999 Serbia was bombed. UN that was in control of Serbian province did nothing when those countries that bombed Serbia pushed that region for independence. Iraq was bombed, and also stayed without UN protection. Few hundred thousands people died, and UN is still irrelevant. The precedent is set: if you want to survive arm to the teeth as there is no international law or UN that can protect you. With UN all those people that died in WW2 and built that legal system to prevent similar horrible crimes now died in vain.
quote
0
MihalMihalich 29 March, 2008, 07:08 Dear Ladies & Gentlemen UN is organization founded in 1945 to replace the League of Nations with main purpose – peacekeeping & international justice. Almost all countries in this world are members of UN. It helped to stabilize world and gave us 60 years of “peace” for most part let world economy multiply and allowed some countries to achieve unthinkable highs in prosperity and quality of life. And it was good for a while until primary contributor “the United States no longer viewed the UN as an effective tool for resolving global conflict because the UN no longer supported the direction of the United States”. Reason behind the talk about “UN is dead” is factual UN`s support of wars or military aggression i.e. democratization by “force of consent” and that UN ignored its own “international laws”. It will take time for UN to stop its existence. Hell, League of Nations existed till end of WW2. So you decide when you personally think UN is rotten enough to be uselessness. And there are many countries that still rely on UN and don’t have alternatives, while others form new primarily military alliances in pursuit of security & mutual benefits, there are new regional unions in South America, Asia, and finally confirmation of that UN is going into grave, the Mediterranean Union that is about to become new force in Europe made of 36 countries that feel need for regional security without United States help. After Global UN is gone, regional Unions will take its place to prevent or start global wars. New world map would be written unlike bipolar US + nato vs USSR or unipolar US global empire… IMHO on corpse of UN there would be 3-5 regional unions. I hope it will get stable before it gets unstable. Best regards
quote
0
Sam 29 March, 2008, 08:38 UN has a future as long as nations respect it and follow international law. Certain Nations ie USA is using the UN as its private tool as we keep seeing it over and over again. "We do not need UN permission to invade Iraq and then UN has to send peacekeepers to sort out the chaos in Iraq" If no UN then what? Every country doing what they like,invading who they dont like.Then their friends come over to help.Thats how world conflicts started. Since UN came into existance,we have not seen the likes of WW1,WW2,Balkan wars etc,etc.
quote
0
Vijay Singh 29 March, 2008, 18:22 The UN is dead as dodo! To revive it and make it a truly 'representative world body', these reforms are needed - India, China, US,RF,Brazil as permanent Veto yielding members. France, Japan, Germany, S.Africa.and maybe Indonesia/Algeria as Permanent but non-veto members. And 5 rotating members from 5 continents. Total = 15 members. Plus, UN military forces have to be strengthened with its own Air Force,Navy and army! The SC/UN army should have full precedence over any Blocs/military alliances etc.
quote
0
Karon 29 March, 2008, 19:27 The United Nation's Charter Article I, Section I states "The Purposes of the United Nations are to maintain international peace and security." Article I, Section 2 states it purposes is "to ensure friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination." That it never occurred to the framers of its Charter that they could not do both at the same time is brought to light with particular force by the war ravaged separatists movements of ethnic peoples in the Balkans. Dare we ask, what is a people? The Charter does not say! This from the late U.S. Senator and former Ambassador to India and the UN Daniel Patrick Moynihan's seminal book on Pandaemonium: Ethnicity in International Politics: "The principle (what determines a people) is generally assumed to apply to people of the same 'nation' or 'nationality.' Language is the commonly asserted bond.There are 6,170 languages spoken in the world at the same time." To writ Moynihan adds with his gift for prophetic humor: "Which suggests enormous potential for growth in the membership of General Assembly (of the United Nations)." And to writ I must add the endless conflicts over equal rights to self-determination of tribal ethnic bandits of given territory at once and the same time demanding intervention by the United Nations whose Charter mandates it to guarantee both "the international peace and security" of a nation and the "right of self-determination" of an ethnic people to succeed from that nation. You asked: Does the UN have a future or is it rusty and dead? It's Charter doomed it from its inception.
quote
0
Karon 29 March, 2008, 19:40 Please note correction from succeed to secede. My apology for the oversight. The United Nation's Charter Article I, Section I states "The Purposes of the United Nations are to maintain international peace and security." Article I, Section 2 states it purposes is "to ensure friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination." That it never occurred to the framers of its Charter that they could not do both at the same time is brought to light with particular force by the war ravaged separatists movements of ethnic peoples in the Balkans. Dare we ask, what is a people? The Charter does not say! This from the late U.S. Senator and former Ambassador to India and the UN Daniel Patrick Moynihan's seminal book on Pandaemonium: Ethnicity in International Politics: "The principle (what determines a people) is generally assumed to apply to people of the same 'nation' or 'nationality.' Language is the commonly asserted bond.There are 6,170 languages spoken in the world at the same time." To writ Moynihan adds with his gift for prophetic humor: "Which suggests enormous potential for growth in the membership of the General Assembly (of the United Nations)." And to writ I must add the endless conflicts over equal rights to self-determination of tribal ethnic bandits of a given territory at once and the same time demanding intervention by the United Nations whose Charter mandates it to guarantee both "the international peace and security" of a nation and the "right of self-determination" of an ethnic people to secede from that nation. You asked: Does the UN have a future or is it rusty and dead? It's Charter doomed it from its inception.
quote
0
Rachel 30 March, 2008, 03:58 The UN has always been a front for the US New World Order. The propaganda has been to conceal "School of the Americas" CIA operations worldwide. They have for years reaped foreign resources behind guise of "helping nations"; Sunday morning films of tractors next to a scrawny farmer or a sad faced child with messy hair-they have preyed on our feelings. Suddenly, they accomplish their goal: expanding their empire-US military bases fastened all over the earth; ready for.what???? This is the question mankind needs to contemplate.in a hurry. Bush Co. is in a great hurry.and he's losing ground. If he doesn't move soon; his attack will be too late. Clue: What are all those prison camps all over the US and overseas for? Has Hitler come to visit us again; but on a much, much grander scale? I'm sorry to say, its true. Read 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2. The technology that "the beast" has acquired is not that of a stupid, idiotic cowboy. It is that of a maniac monster with power of Satan unlike any other despot in history, or ever will be. This is the wicked's end and they won't go out quietly. Surely, all regular people desire peace. But there is a minority of irregulars - they are committed to greed and deception-just as Nero was committed to destroying the innocent; enjoying terror. As history proves; the wicked show no mercy. It is time to seek the Creator's mercy.
quote
0
Vijay Singh 30 March, 2008, 06:56 Reforms (continued from a previous post)- Security Council - The right to veto should be there! However, so that democratic process, even within the SC is maintained, the right to an Anti-veto VETO should be established. Thus, if there is one veto, two or more anti-veto vetoes shall nullify that veto and the majority vote, in the absence of a unanimous one, shall take precedence. WMD's - All traceable WMD's shall be the property of the 'New UN' or rather this "Government of the new World"! All Nuclear, biological, chemical, space, laser, Nano and/or other types of weapons that can inflict massive harm/kill thousands/millions shall come under UN control. Some may call for total elimination, but a certain stockpile must be maintained, in order to restrain REAL 'rogue' regimes, alien threats (the "Mars attack" types), runaway meteors, comets etc that may threaten world in the future. The deployment of such weapons shall rest with the Security Council, with the deployment keys in the hands of all five veto-empowered members. However, in case of dire emergency, two or three (out of five)'turnings’ of the key/s shall deploy the weapon/s! Charters/laws - All unjust/biased laws/charters shall come up for review and revocation, in case necessary. Financial sanctions - Should not become a weapon in the hands of certain financial powers, powers to outflank such measures could be inserted. Offices - The head office of the UN should be established at primarily an UN territory (something like the Vatican), where UN laws are paramount for visas etc and not any local/regional laws!-"why not establish the headquarters in Belgrade, the heart of Eurasia" OR even Tehran/Fiji Islands/Switzerland.wherever. The branch offices/military barracks etc could be disbursed at various places such as New York, New Delhi, Beijing, Moscow, and Brasilia.even at places like Buenos Aires, Caracas, Cairo, Islamabad, Kuala Lumpur, Mexico City, Madrid, and Riyadh etc. There has to be reforms in totality, partial reforms will make matters worse. Many more 'wise people' would no doubt bash their heads to go into micro-details. However, if this is not done fast. Many more Panamas, Vietnams, Iraq’s, Somalia’s, Haiti’s, Bosnia’s, Serbia’s, Afghanistan’s, Iraq may be repeated. Future Taiwan’s, Tibet’s, Iran’s, Syria’s, North Koreas may happen. For as they say - WW3 may/may not have a victor, but WW4 will only have stones and sticks as weapons of Mass Destruction.
quote
0
john 30 March, 2008, 07:05 The UN has some achievements particularly in the non-political areas. But is fails to recognize the prime problems this planed faces. Global worming, climate changes and population over-grow have been left unattended for too long. The credibility of the UN has been destroyed by primitive behavior by US and Britain. Current efforts to reform this institution progress at lame duck pace. More countries need to get permanent seat in the Security Council with veto rights. Code of ethics has to be put in place to prevent countries selling their voting rights in exchange for economic aid or political gains. Ref Bulgaria agreed to vote for war against Iraq in exchange for US economic aid. Bulgaria should never occupy any voting seat at any international organization. Britain also abused its position and should be expelled from the Security Council. There is a say ‘if two men always agree one of them is not necessary’. Britain as pet of the US is not able to make any contribution to the UN and should be expelled.
quote
0
comment 30 March, 2008, 20:13 Vijay Singh spoken like a naïve child. And UN head office is in New York for very long time.
quote
0
Norman 30 March, 2008, 22:52 Rachel- If you look at some recent UN decisions and debates, the United Nations is somewhat ANTI-AMERICAN! Most of their sub-organisations ( ICAO, ITU, WHO, FAO and etcetera ) are based outside the United States. The above statementis not to be construed that I always support my country and it's policies. Infact, I give the UN credit for defusing some potential conflicts and wars. Still, it's mostly a big debating club. You'll rarily get 200 plus nations to agree on most issues.
quote
0
Sanjay 31 March, 2008, 03:08 Unfortunately the question of UN goes back to justice and security for all nations. So long as one or two entities like US and China continue their unilateral policies peace cannot prevail. Europe had the golden opportunity to balance the power of international financiers by collaborating with Russia, and making UN a more just organization, but they continue to remain in the grip of financiers, who want to destroy the western civilization through wars, family-collapse and immigration. For UN to become more just, India and europe should have one seat each with veto weilding power.
quote
0
next 1 2 3 4 5 6
POST COMMENT
CAPTCHA
On Air Talent RT mobile Corporate profile Job opportunities Partners Закупки Press releases Advertise with RT All RT sites

Legal disclaimer Feedback Contact us © Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”, 2005–2012. All rights reserved.