3 ms·

> Why? Because China has a veto ... Similar dynamics play out interests concerning other veto wielding countries such as the US or Russia. Think of the UN as a

> Why? Because China has a veto ... Similar dynamics play out interests concerning other veto wielding countries such as the US or Russia. Think of the UN as a mechnism for de facto powers to resolve conflicts and come to agreements peacefully; that's the UN's purpose, to prevent another major war. Justice would be great, but at least the catastrophe of war is prevented. Remember of the incredible destruction of WWII and now imagine what modern technology would do - even without nuclear weapons. Also, Taiwan's official policy is that they are not a separate country but a part of China, with a separate government. That is the agreement worked out between the US, China and Taiwan.

argonaut 11y ago
You need to be much more clear. The Republic of China's official policy is they are part of China, the geographical/historical/cultural entity. They have never said they are a part of the People's Republic of China. That is the agreement worked out between US, the PRC, and the ROC (note you said it was worked out between US, China, and Taiwan, which is inaccurate). This may seem overly pedantic, but it is not. This wording is the entire backbone of the delicate geopolitical dance that underlies the status quo we have today.
- meric 11y ago
  Clarifying, not disagreeing; The ROC constitution has historically insisted the territories of mainland China and Taiwan are administered by the ROC. The stance is exactly the same as the PRC.
iofj 11y ago
> Think of the UN as a mechnism for de facto powers to resolve conflicts and come to agreements peacefully; that's the UN's purpose, to prevent another major war. The League of Nations had that as it's primary function [1]. Aside from some initial (heaveily criticized and somewhat dubious) successes, it failed. Spectacularly. The UN was created by reassembling the shattered bits of the LN ... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations
- hackuser 11y ago
  > The League of Nations had that as it's primary function [1]. Aside from some initial (heaveily criticized and somewhat dubious) successes, it failed. One reason it failed and the UN has succeeded is that one of the most powerful countries, the United States, didn't participate in the LoN.
  - iofj 11y ago
    And for 20 years you could say the League of Nations succeeded. Like the LN, the UN has become increasingly ineffective over time. In 1948 and onwards the various human rights were established and high profile cases were won. The position of the poor was advanced by the UN, prisoner treatment, political rights, hell everything ... even the plight of women and gay people in the muslim world advanced significantly as a result of UN action. Now ... it's not just that the UN has stopped such advances, a good case can be made that it's actively working to turn them back.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      Saying the UN will fail and there will be a major war is very speculative and not evidience of anything; it's just your prediction. Do you have evidence of your other statements? I'm not familiar with any of it; what I see today is what I see in every political institution.
      - iofj 11y ago
        You misunderstand. I merely posit that the UN is useless and has zero influence over whether or not a major war will be forthcoming. I think that most UN staffers share this opinion. They are there because of connections, and they are there to do nothing at all.

argonaut 11y ago

You need to be much more clear. The Republic of China's official policy is they are part of China, the geographical/historical/cultural entity. They have never said they are a part of the People's Republic of China. That is the agreement worked out between US, the PRC, and the ROC (note you said it was worked out between US, China, and Taiwan, which is inaccurate). This may seem overly pedantic, but it is not. This wording is the entire backbone of the delicate geopolitical dance that underlies the status quo we have today.

meric 11y ago
Clarifying, not disagreeing; The ROC constitution has historically insisted the territories of mainland China and Taiwan are administered by the ROC. The stance is exactly the same as the PRC.

iofj 11y ago

> Think of the UN as a mechnism for de facto powers to resolve conflicts and come to agreements peacefully; that's the UN's purpose, to prevent another major war. The League of Nations had that as it's primary function [1]. Aside from some initial (heaveily criticized and somewhat dubious) successes, it failed. Spectacularly. The UN was created by reassembling the shattered bits of the LN ... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations

hackuser 11y ago
> The League of Nations had that as it's primary function [1]. Aside from some initial (heaveily criticized and somewhat dubious) successes, it failed. One reason it failed and the UN has succeeded is that one of the most powerful countries, the United States, didn't participate in the LoN.
- iofj 11y ago
  And for 20 years you could say the League of Nations succeeded. Like the LN, the UN has become increasingly ineffective over time. In 1948 and onwards the various human rights were established and high profile cases were won. The position of the poor was advanced by the UN, prisoner treatment, political rights, hell everything ... even the plight of women and gay people in the muslim world advanced significantly as a result of UN action. Now ... it's not just that the UN has stopped such advances, a good case can be made that it's actively working to turn them back.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    Saying the UN will fail and there will be a major war is very speculative and not evidience of anything; it's just your prediction. Do you have evidence of your other statements? I'm not familiar with any of it; what I see today is what I see in every political institution.
    - iofj 11y ago
      You misunderstand. I merely posit that the UN is useless and has zero influence over whether or not a major war will be forthcoming. I think that most UN staffers share this opinion. They are there because of connections, and they are there to do nothing at all.