Is the UN fit for purpose?

  JanetO 11:15 15 Jun 11
Locked

Did anyone watch Channel 4's Sri Lanka's Killing Fields last night? http://www.channel4.com/programmes/sri-lankas-killing-fields

The UN left the civillians to be slaughtered, as they did so in Rwanda (500,000 civillians died in that one), as they did so in the Former Yugoslavia (that was only a mere estimated 250,000), and I seem to recall their involvement in Beirut resulted in some of their own personell getting killed.

Perhaps others can add their own contributions as to the UN's failure in other conflicts.

  proudfoot 12:24 15 Jun 11

The short answer is a big No. It will fail evetually just like it's forerunner The League of Nations did before the second world war. Too many nations have a vested interest the various countries that could be helped and veto any proposals that do not suit their purpose.

  wee eddie 13:19 15 Jun 11

It may not be able to solve all problems in all places because of restrictions placed on its active agents (the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen)by one Government or another.

However, it's the best we have.

  Cymro. 14:06 15 Jun 11

Well no the UN is not fit for purpose? But it is all we have for the foreseeable future. Their job is about as difficult as it gets in World politics. One day someone will come up with a better way of doing things but until then we have to do the best we can with what we have. The UNs failure in some situations is no reason to close the shop and walk away from it. We should try to make things better not shut our eyes to the problems.

  proudfoot 14:09 15 Jun 11

The armed forces are not the problem they are at the mercy of the polititians who make a cock up of most things they touch.

  wee eddie 14:39 15 Jun 11

st-clares. It's not even, really, a cock-up by the Politicians.

It's just that not all Members of the UN have the same Agenda and Human Life is not really a factor for consideration when National Needs & Requirements are the driving Force.

  Cymro. 16:04 15 Jun 11

*wee eddie "Human Life is not really a factor for consideration when National Needs & Requirements are the driving Force.*

Well yes indeed, but is that not how things have always been. It was "national needs" that caused most wars. Our national needs must always come before the "national needs" of others. Well that is what the politicians will always say.

  proudfoot 16:25 15 Jun 11

Cymro you have summed it up.

  nangadef 16:47 15 Jun 11

"Well yes indeed, but is that not how things have always been. It was "national needs" that caused most wars. Our national needs must always come before the "national needs" of others."

Cymro, substitute 'greed' for 'needs' and I agree.

  interzone55 17:12 15 Jun 11

Substitute Oil & Religion for needs / greed and I'll agree

  bremner 17:20 15 Jun 11

The question should be are parts of the UN unfit for purpose?

I have friends who have been working for UNICEF for five years in various parts of the world. Their work is very much fit for purpose.

It is the UN security council where the real diffciulties exist as too many countries and in particular USA, China and Russia put themselves and their own interests before those of the suffering people.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Surface Pro 5 News - release date, UK price, features, specs

Microsoft Surface Studio hands-on review: the iMac killer is here

Best Mac antivirus 2017