Do you think the U.N. is dysfunctional when it comes to dealing with wars and other disputes between countries?

© Japan Today

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

The UN is a joke, and has been ever since it granted veto power to its five 'permanent' members, none of which deserves that recognition nor power. Whatever happened to 'majority rule'??? I think they should close it down.

20 ( +26 / -6 )

To make the UN a truly internationally 'democratic' body capable of supplying effective solutions to international derangements, the 'Security Council" must be eliminated, giving much too much influence to the interests of the 'major players'. In its present form, it is just another projection of the corrupt power of psychopathy in our world and a fraud compared to its ostensibly intended purpose that, instead, tolerates all manner of Human suffering. But, if the UN were a 'fair' body, know that the U.S. would NOT continue its membership because such a body could not condone so much of the corruption and Human misery that is directly attributable to U.S. support. Like the ICC, which the U.S. both condemns and then calls upon to condemn others, the blind HYPOCRISY which defines so much of U.S. policy sees 'fairness' as a disease of the weak. And given that the idea of the U.N. is 'equality', a mythical perception among Humans, it is largely just Humanity trying to fool itself into believing WE are more than we so obviously really are.

8 ( +17 / -9 )

Agree with both.

Eliminate the Security Council and establish majority rule based order. That way there will be no more stonewalling on any issues. But as it is, the US and UK are on one side with France usually backing them up and Russia and China on the opposite side resulting in a stalemate on most things.

Its not working.

7 ( +13 / -6 )

The UN is dysfunctional full stop. Corrupt to the core, a haven for globalist stooges, and a retirement home for politicians and bureaucrats rewarded for selling out their own countries. There are a few good people in there who genuinely believe they are helping the world, but their efforts are stifled by the crooks who prop up despots and indulge in graft as a hobby.

Time to disband it and create a new organisation that bans non-democratic governments.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

I don’t know weather it’s dysfunctional. But am opinion is the world world be worse off without this Organisation.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Those veto rights in the Security Council and also the fact that also most other decisions or negotiation results are not really binding, that’s the most obvious part of their visible and massive dysfunction. I would recommend more something like a double chamber system, one based on population size and the other one on country numbers, and then everything has to be voted 90% or so in both chambers and then such decisions count as binding and will be set in practice by force.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I like the idea of the UN in theory, a council that states around the world can participate in.

It hasn't been relevant for a long time though, and is basically a puppet of a few states. Even if 99% of the UN agrees on something, it doesn't matter. Look at the UN position of the American sanctions on Cuba, basically the entirety of the UN is opposed to the US on the matter, and has been every time they voted on it, but it doesn't matter. Which begs the question, what is the point?

Nevermind all the grandstanding and performance that have taken place over the last few months, it is a total farce.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

UN is irrelevant and pathetic

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

The UN is a joke. It should be disbanded. As long as Russia and China remain on the PSC the UN will never be able to resolve anything.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Yet, those who often quote UNHCR's verdicts to damn Japan should vote for YES

0 ( +2 / -2 )


I don’t know weather it’s dysfunctional. But am opinion is the world world be worse off without this Organisation.

Completely agree. A lot of persons do not seem to understand that the UN functions as a place for multilateral discussions (and open disputes!), as well as a place to build consensus / alliances or to show one's (true) colors and stand up or to gain some level of "influence" (as opposed to slide into "irrelevance") sometimes by regrouping with same-minded parties, with all these being lost in case of singled-out discussions or relations where force and pressure can be much stronger levers against weaker parties.

The problem as the 3 first posters have mentioned, is the PSC which harks back to the end of, not only an era, but a "world". The world after WWII would never be the same as before and would further see the 5 members losing their grips on their resp. powers/legitimacy (e.g. US, China and their role/positions in WWII) or "world"/colonies/sphere of influence (e.g. France, UK, Russia). The PSC in itself is an "anomaly" and should be abolished in its entirety.

Seeing only Russia and China's presence in the PSC as "problematic" is just a myopic vision of the UN or its role as a whole based on personal bias, said bias harking back to the same time and worldview that started this whole mess. Some people should update their vision to the realities of a global 21st century world instead of wallowing in a dead past, vain glories and silly, if not dangerous posturing.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

A key metric of functioning will be the institution's resolve to promote their long-touted support for welfare of women. But it has faced a huge challenge in the face of a continuous brutal assault on women in the hands of the Taliban. Both Russia and China, along with Pakistan and Iran, though, want full international recognition, saying that the Taliban are close enough to showing change.

But they are not. Not by a long shot.

So will the UN cave? And let the Taliban take a seat in it's house? And promote full global of the taliban towards diplomatic recognition and normalization of relations. All the while throwing away any reasonable future for Afghanistan's women and children?

If they cave on the issue of women, they should just dissolve.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

They need to remove veto power.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The UN is anything but united. The veto's five nations enjoy means that they and nations they support gain a benefit other nations do not enjoy. None of the five can be censured as they simply veto it. Any of the five can do pretty much what they like and the UN via the security council is powerless to stop them.

If another fairer way is not found, then the world remains stuck in paralysis unable to stop wars from happening, or to stop them once started.

Drop all veto power and permanent membership on the security council. Draw up iron clad membership agreements that all nations must act to protect any member attacked by another via trade embargo's and military engagement. In the Ukraine situation it would require the worlds militaries to in effect, move into the Ukraine territories and peace keep. Any aggression from Russia would be responded to without any troops invading Russia, negating the need to defend with nuclear weapons. Russian troops would be expelled from all Ukraine territory.

War must become a thing of the past if were are ever to improve life for everyone. It should not matter the color of skin, the religion one follows or does not. The right to live in peace bust be ingrained in the UN charter as the number one right of all people in the world.

Much work needs to be done to fix the broken institution that is today's UN.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Alright, tax paying citizens of all countries represented in the UN. Bend over, pay the representatives'salaries again and again, for a most useless service. The world would be much better with disbanding the whole bunch of crocks and eventually come with a better organisation, without genocidal Russia and Communist China leading the way.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The simple veto by a permanent member should be rescinded and replaced, for example, by the two-thirds majority vote (10 out of the total 15 UNSC members). Other solutions such as membership expansion to 20 should be taken into account.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Get rid of it. Send the talkers all off to find real jobs. Sell the building in New York. Give the money spent by US taxpayers and others back!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The UN is now and always has been a retirement club for old men washed up in politics and diplomacy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

They need to remove the veto from all countries and give the UN back some teeth... at the moment over Ukraine it's more of a gummy hamster. A talking shop, while people are dying or losing their entire way of life because some madman in Moscow wants to recreate the USSR.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The UN works if you believe there should be a uni-polar world. Otherwise it is a tool to project US foreign policy onto the world.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

UN is irrelevant and pathetic

I couldn’t agree more.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

As always, nobody listens to them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder if anyone has anything better to replace the UN with then? Then please let us hear it.

Has anyone considered how the UN has actually reduced wars since 1945?

How about all the world vaccine, food, health, relief, programs? how would you replace them.

Since the UN has not standing army, how do people expect the UN to step in? and which countries will supply those troops?

Basically if you want to find out another reason why there is no alternative to the UN you just need to look at the League of Nations. One reason it fell apart is the BIG super powers don't want to listen to some small country somewhere telling them what to do. So what's the alternative?

As Churchill once said, it is better to JAW JAW than to WAR WAR.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

No, because the purpose of the U.N is talk and not war. The power of veto was deliberately designed to facilitate this talk to always be able to happen as the world's power blocks could not gang up on each other. Anybody who has wanted fact free news about the war in Ukraine has been able to hear all the parties state their case at the U.N without having to rely upon Fox or Rupert Murdoch to filter that information. As such the U.N does a fantastic job of overcoming fake news and allowing all parties to express their view globally.

However, I do think the U.N should be allowed to put a price upon the head of dictators that continue to break U.N resolutions. So, the north Korean leader should have a price on his head. And anybody that arrests him so he can be tried in a U.N court, should be awarded a large sum of money by the U.N. Again though this would have to need all the great powers to vote for this without a veto.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites