4 ms·

Got any ideas?

johansch 10y ago
1. Tear down the UN since it has failed. Russia, China or the US will always block something. The security council is clearly dysfunctional. 2. Establish e.g. EU humanitarian intervention taskforce. And the same for ASEAN? And maybe even North America when it's ready to re-join the global community again? [ :) ]. I think the key is to de-couple things from Russia and China at least until they themselves begin to be responsible citizens in the global community.
- aftbit 10y ago
  The UN was not created to be a humanitarian force. The UN (like the League of Nations before it) was created to prevent another world war. The League failed, but since we haven't had WW3, I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim that the UN has failed.
  - johansch 10y ago
    Sure, you have a point there. So perhaps the issue we see now is that we have lots of humanitarian hotspots around the world and we need another organization than the UN to deal with it? Can they co-exist?
  - BariumBlue 10y ago
    The UN currently functions as more of a common public forum, where any country may voice their opinion and all are heard and may discuss. Even North Korea has been admitted to the UN. In fostering discussion and enabling rational diplomacy between nations, it has been a success.
- vkou 10y ago
  Is #2 just another name for NATO? Because it's (not entirely, but in large part) responsible for a number of humanitarian crises. Iraq, Libya, Syria spring to mind. All three were much better off before they were invaded, or pushed into civil war. Oh, and the UN is a red herring. NATO does as NATO wants - UN approval is only useful in improving their domestic cases for going to war.
  - mercurial 10y ago
    Syria was invaded by NATO?
    - vkou 10y ago
      The Syrian civil war was initially a conflict between Assad, and the Free Syrian Army, into which NATO poured munitions, training, and 'volunteers' from the Lybian civil war, letting it blossomed into a multi-directional hellscape, involving Assad, the FSA, Kurdish groups, and notably, Al Qaeda's Syrian branch, Al Nusra (Which, ironically, is considered by the West to be a 'moderate' group in the conflict. We've done a good job of bombing the people they've been fighting against.) Soon after that, ISIS, the estranged lovechild of the Iraqi civil war enters the picture. No, Syria wasn't invaded by NATO - instead, NATO poured, and continues to pour oil on that fire, because instead of making the situation better, it would rather fight a proxy war with Russia. Despite our best efforts at supporting the rebel groups, and bombing Assad, he's still in power. Given that, I think it's reasonable to conclude that had the conflict been left to resolve itself, he would have won fairly quickly - or at least, by now, most of the country would be under his control, as opposed to a five-way horror-show. We'd also probably be seeing a lot fewer beheading videos on Twitter. NATO's perspective on the whole conflict, start to end, was not humanitarian - but rather as a question of "What can we do to stick it to the Russians, and topple Assad?"
      - tdkl 10y ago
        War is a racket.
      - lisivka 10y ago
        So, you are basically propose to watch war with beer and popcorn instead of trying to help. It's looks like you have East mentality. Quick check: what is more valuable: one men or one hundred?
        vkou 10y ago
        You are mistaken in your belief that arming the losing side in a civil war 'helps' anything but prolonging it. What those people need is humanitarian aid, not billions of dollars in Tomahawk missiles and AR-15s.
- havetocharge 10y ago
  You're proposing to tear down the organization that's responsible for international cooperation in order to improve the said cooperation? Or do you propose to stop cooperating altogether? Not necessarily disagreeing that UN is dysfunctional, but your proposal is not constructive (and biased).
  - oh_sigh 10y ago
    It sounds like you're assuming that, just because a group has certain intentions, that the actions they perform further those intentions.
- unabridged 10y ago
  >Tear down the UN since it has failed. Russia, China or the US will always block something. The security council is clearly dysfunctional. This is the point of the UN. Major powers get to block things with a vote instead of with force.
  - lisivka 10y ago
    But Russia is not playing by these rules any longer, so it uses UN to block US and China, while doing what it wants.
- vermontdevil 10y ago
  The US too. We need to stop invading other countries.

Got any ideas?

1. Tear down the UN since it has failed. Russia, China or the US will always block something. The security council is clearly dysfunctional. 2. Establish e.g. EU humanitarian intervention taskforce. And the same for ASEAN? And maybe even North America when it's ready to re-join the global community again? [ :) ]. I think the key is to de-couple things from Russia and China at least until they themselves begin to be responsible citizens in the global community.

aftbit 10y ago
The UN was not created to be a humanitarian force. The UN (like the League of Nations before it) was created to prevent another world war. The League failed, but since we haven't had WW3, I think it's a bit disingenuous to claim that the UN has failed.
- johansch 10y ago
  Sure, you have a point there. So perhaps the issue we see now is that we have lots of humanitarian hotspots around the world and we need another organization than the UN to deal with it? Can they co-exist?
- BariumBlue 10y ago
  The UN currently functions as more of a common public forum, where any country may voice their opinion and all are heard and may discuss. Even North Korea has been admitted to the UN. In fostering discussion and enabling rational diplomacy between nations, it has been a success.
vkou 10y ago
Is #2 just another name for NATO? Because it's (not entirely, but in large part) responsible for a number of humanitarian crises. Iraq, Libya, Syria spring to mind. All three were much better off before they were invaded, or pushed into civil war. Oh, and the UN is a red herring. NATO does as NATO wants - UN approval is only useful in improving their domestic cases for going to war.
- mercurial 10y ago
  Syria was invaded by NATO?
  - vkou 10y ago
    The Syrian civil war was initially a conflict between Assad, and the Free Syrian Army, into which NATO poured munitions, training, and 'volunteers' from the Lybian civil war, letting it blossomed into a multi-directional hellscape, involving Assad, the FSA, Kurdish groups, and notably, Al Qaeda's Syrian branch, Al Nusra (Which, ironically, is considered by the West to be a 'moderate' group in the conflict. We've done a good job of bombing the people they've been fighting against.) Soon after that, ISIS, the estranged lovechild of the Iraqi civil war enters the picture. No, Syria wasn't invaded by NATO - instead, NATO poured, and continues to pour oil on that fire, because instead of making the situation better, it would rather fight a proxy war with Russia. Despite our best efforts at supporting the rebel groups, and bombing Assad, he's still in power. Given that, I think it's reasonable to conclude that had the conflict been left to resolve itself, he would have won fairly quickly - or at least, by now, most of the country would be under his control, as opposed to a five-way horror-show. We'd also probably be seeing a lot fewer beheading videos on Twitter. NATO's perspective on the whole conflict, start to end, was not humanitarian - but rather as a question of "What can we do to stick it to the Russians, and topple Assad?"
    - tdkl 10y ago
      War is a racket.
    - lisivka 10y ago
      So, you are basically propose to watch war with beer and popcorn instead of trying to help. It's looks like you have East mentality. Quick check: what is more valuable: one men or one hundred?
      - vkou 10y ago
        You are mistaken in your belief that arming the losing side in a civil war 'helps' anything but prolonging it. What those people need is humanitarian aid, not billions of dollars in Tomahawk missiles and AR-15s.
havetocharge 10y ago
You're proposing to tear down the organization that's responsible for international cooperation in order to improve the said cooperation? Or do you propose to stop cooperating altogether? Not necessarily disagreeing that UN is dysfunctional, but your proposal is not constructive (and biased).
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  It sounds like you're assuming that, just because a group has certain intentions, that the actions they perform further those intentions.
unabridged 10y ago
>Tear down the UN since it has failed. Russia, China or the US will always block something. The security council is clearly dysfunctional. This is the point of the UN. Major powers get to block things with a vote instead of with force.
- lisivka 10y ago
  But Russia is not playing by these rules any longer, so it uses UN to block US and China, while doing what it wants.
vermontdevil 10y ago
The US too. We need to stop invading other countries.