5 problems facing U.N. as it nears 70th anniversary

Rogue states like the US disregarding, with impunity, all that it stands for.

China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and the occasional bonehead internet commentator that doesn't know what human rights are.

Sure, b/c Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and drone warfare that continues to kill innocent civilians, sorry, I mean collateral damage, making Obama as much a war criminal as his predecessor, none of this is known by the world. Keep sucking that self-absolving propaganda down with your beer mate.

@jcapan And keep ignoring the past 6 years and the grabs for power by China and Russia, mate.

Number 1 problem? The existence of ANY permanent members on the security council. Its like a "dictator for life" position.

It is easily the least democratic institution in the world.

Oh, and the idea of "non-binding resolutions"? Complete bull. Give people a simple choice, "Behave or we send in the ninja frogmen and assassinate every senior politician in your country". Yes, I'm being serious. Going to war just hurts the regular Joes and Janes, and frankly the senior politicians don't give a hoot.

Of course it is just a measure of the illogicality and hypocrisy of modern society that we balk at the idea of assassinating a handful of senior politicians who are actually responsible while we applaud sending thousands of soldiers out to die meaninglessly.

But a good starting step would be removing all of the current "permanent" security council members and replacing them with countries with good reputations, like Iceland, Canada, Austria, New Zealand, and perhaps even Japan (although I personally have some doubts about Japan).

UN is a joke, plain and simple.

Agreed the UN is pointless because it is just one big group of politicians and bureaucrats doing What the political class always does, find excuses to take money and power.

The authors first point is not relevant. The only check on this group of parasites is the 5 members who can put a stop to most UN insanity.

The primary problem making the UN ineffective and irrelevant is moral equivalence. They always treat tyranny and violent thug run countries and groups the same as countries not violent cess pools. A good example is darfur. The thugs running the country were genociding and enslaving yet the UN treats the Arab leadership as if they are legitimate, which tacitly approved slavery. Hamas is another example and Fatah. These terrorists murdered people around the area and the world, not to mention how they treat their own people, like human shields. These groups are not in Anyway a legitimate government, yet the UN treats them as if they are legitimate. As long as the UN refuses to take a side when a side is clear, such as No slavery, and they won't help stop it, the UN renders it's self irrelevant and guilty of facilitating horrible crimes.

"Outdated power structure". So it needs to be updated in the sense of giving it more power I would assume? No how dated it is is irrelevant, its not needed to begin with.

@Frungy

It is easily the least democratic institution in the world.

And for the better. While I dont like the U.N at all, its a massive waste of tax money, I would dread a democratic U.N. Democracy is simply tyranny of the majority which is why checks and balances are needed. Keep in mind most countries in the world are third world impoverished countries. Why should this failed majority decide policy for a successful minority of countries?

The U.N is simply ineffective in its goals of solving world problems. Its simply a canal to redistribute wealth from wealthy societies to impoverished societies under the guidance of "foreign aid"

AiserXDec. 05, 2014 - 02:57AM JST And for the better.

Bull.

While I dont like the U.N at all, its a massive waste of tax money, I would dread a democratic U.N. Democracy is simply tyranny of the majority which is why checks and balances are needed. Keep in mind most countries in the world are third world impoverished countries. Why should this failed majority decide policy for a successful minority of countries?

And have you paused to consider the staggering hypocrisy and arrogance of the UN espousing a doctrine of democracy to these third world countries while maintaining an autocratic structure? You really need a refresher course in leadership.

replacing them with countries with good reputations, like Iceland, Canada, Austria, New Zealand, and perhaps even Japan (although I personally have some doubts about Japan).

Not that I want Japan to be included, but why do you have doubts about Japan?

Tinawatanabe - Simply because the USA has been applying pressure to China through Japan and the pressure is only set to rise as the USA feels more and more threatened. Japan has been too much of a gullible fool to see through this and is evidently a poor student of history if it believes the USA will honor its commitment to protect Japan. The USA has ALWAYS proven to be the epitome of the "fairweather friend".

China knows this. The USA knows this. Japan seems to be the only person in the room who isn't in on it.

I think Japan should stop funding UN activities altogether. It's a waste of money, plus Japan will never get a permanent seat on UNSC.

I think Japan should stop funding UN activities altogether. It's a waste of money, plus Japan will never get a permanent seat on UNSC.

And have you paused to consider the staggering hypocrisy and arrogance of the UN espousing a doctrine of democracy to these third world countries while maintaining an autocratic structure? You really need a refresher course in leadership.

Now, you need a refresher in leadership. While I don't like the U.N structure, I'd rather have 1st world countries pressure 3rd world countries as opposed to 3rd world countries pressure 1st world countries under the guise of majority rule democracy. Which is what people like you most likely want. Really the arrogance is on your part, there is a reason such poor countries are a failure.

AiserXDec. 06, 2014 - 05:34AM JST Now, you need a refresher in leadership. While I don't like the U.N structure, I'd rather have 1st world countries pressure 3rd world countries as opposed to 3rd world countries pressure 1st world countries under the guise of majority rule democracy. Which is what people like you most likely want. Really the arrogance is on your part, there is a reason such poor countries are a failure.

... clearly your knowledge of economics, history, politics, and nearly every single field of study is lacking. The reasons these countries are poor (and that doesn't necessarily mean a failure) is because of inequalities inherent in international economics and politics.

You can add ignorance to arrogance on your list of failings.

Frungy, You talked about replacing all the five permanent members, one of which could be Japan although you have some doubts about Japan because US is a fairweather friend..

If you are trying to say because US won't allow Japan to be a permanent ( it is well known that US is one of the countries who are obstructing Japan from becoming a permanent member, by the way), why would US and other permanent members allow any replacement? I have doubts not only about Japan but also other four countries you named as having good reputations. Why only Japan? Are you saying US particularly hates Japan?

tinawatanabeDec. 06, 2014 - 06:48PM JST Frungy, You talked about replacing all the five permanent members, one of which could be Japan although you have some doubts about Japan because US is a fairweather friend..

I think you misunderstood. Japan is fundamentally under the US's thumb. It hosts US bases that are massively unpopular with Japanese people, it pays the US massive amounts every year for nothing, and bows to pressure almost every single time the US wants something.

Replacing the US with Japan wouldn't really be a replacement.

@Frungy substitute "Japanese people" with "Okinawan people" and you might have a sensible statement. That still doesn't mean adding Japan to the SC wouldn't be a good idea given the plethora of dictatorships on there. Just because you want China to conquer all doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

scipantheistDec. 08, 2014 - 04:42PM JST Just because you want China to conquer all doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

Your only intelligible comment is an ad hominem attack based on ... I don't know what this is based on.

Perhaps you missed that I wanted ALL the permanent members removed from the security council, which would include China?

@Frungy You have no coherent plan to keep China out of Okinawa, so it absolutely is relevant that people know what you stand for, namely further subjugation.

scipantheistDec. 09, 2014 - 12:54AM JST @Frungy You have no coherent plan to keep China out of Okinawa, so it absolutely is relevant that people know what you stand for, namely further subjugation.

Oh dear, I didn't realise that the UN was keeping China out of Okinawa... wouldn't China just veto that? Oh dear, there goes your argument.

Is there any more illogic you'd like to spew?

If you can't follow simple statements and are done mindlessly bashing the US, than no, I have nothing to add.