5 ms·

> The UN hasn’t prevented nuclear war, it’s accomplished virtually nothing in its long history. Last "nuclear war" was on 9 August 1945. UN formed on 24 Octob

by ethbro 6y ago

> The UN hasn’t prevented nuclear war, it’s accomplished virtually nothing in its long history. Last "nuclear war" was on 9 August 1945. UN formed on 24 October 1945. > Geopolitical reality doesn’t require letting authoritarian regimes chair your human rights committees. Yes, it does. If they have large militaries and/or economies. > The UN would be a far more effective and useful body if it took away the right to vote from authoritarian regimes. The idea of providing a UN vote to a dictator or kleptocrat who doesn’t allow a real democracy in their own country is absurd. No, it wouldn't. The point of the UN is to avoid war, not to spread democracy [1]. The structure of the UN is a consequence of that aim. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations#Chapter_I:_Purposes_And_Principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations#...

kohtatsu 6y ago
Are you not aware of what's going on in Xinjiang? (Or Tibet or to practitioners of Falun Gong or even christianity in China) From the first article of the first charter: > 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; > 3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. Democracy or not they do not belong on the UN Human Rights Council.
- free_rms 6y ago
  The UN is a diplomatic forum, it's not a western global hegemony mechanism. Or, at least, not these days anymore.
- ethbro 6y ago
  You see how that language was carefully crafted with "develop" and "promote" / "encourage", vs the "maintain" and "take" in Article 1.1 and portions dealing with peace? The UN exists to prevent war between great powers. All else is subordinate to that goal.
valuearb 6y ago
There hasn’t been a nuclear war since the Cleveland Rams last NFL championship. The correlation is just as apt. As far as preventing war in general, the Korean War, Vietnam, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Falklands, two gulf wars, Russian invasion of Ukraine, etc, etc. UN mediation is no more effective than any other major power mediation efforts in history, in fact it can be argued the UN has been less effective. The key method to avoiding war is to spread democracy, which is why the UN is such a failure, and it’s charter is the prime reason.
- alextheparrot 6y ago
  Would learning that the diplomatic channels of the UN were some of the methods used to relay information during, for example, the Cuban middle crisis change your opinion? The comparison seems to lack historical context, the UN has been involved into international diplomatic actions relating to nuclear war far more than any footballers. I think the “spreading democracy” mindset is wholly unsubstantiated, as most of the wars you mentioned were predicated on either preserving or spreading democracy. If we need war to prevent war, it seems that there can be no peace.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    There is no peace as long as authoritarian regimes threaten democratic nations and their own peoples.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Yes and no. Yes, there is not real peace, and there is not peace even within such nations. That difference (between authoritarian and non-authoritarian) matters. But no, even with authoritarian regimes in existence, there is a difference between "shooting war" and "no shooting war". That difference matters, too.
    - vkou 6y ago
      A bad peace is better than a good war. As anyone who's ever had a war fought on their soil will tell you. When was the last time a war has been fought on your country's soil? How many times since then has your country brought war to another's? Your opinion might change were you on the receiving end of these adventures.

by ethbro 6y ago

kohtatsu 6y ago

Are you not aware of what's going on in Xinjiang? (Or Tibet or to practitioners of Falun Gong or even christianity in China) From the first article of the first charter: > 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; > 3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. Democracy or not they do not belong on the UN Human Rights Council.

free_rms 6y ago
The UN is a diplomatic forum, it's not a western global hegemony mechanism. Or, at least, not these days anymore.
ethbro 6y ago
You see how that language was carefully crafted with "develop" and "promote" / "encourage", vs the "maintain" and "take" in Article 1.1 and portions dealing with peace? The UN exists to prevent war between great powers. All else is subordinate to that goal.

valuearb 6y ago

There hasn’t been a nuclear war since the Cleveland Rams last NFL championship. The correlation is just as apt. As far as preventing war in general, the Korean War, Vietnam, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Falklands, two gulf wars, Russian invasion of Ukraine, etc, etc. UN mediation is no more effective than any other major power mediation efforts in history, in fact it can be argued the UN has been less effective. The key method to avoiding war is to spread democracy, which is why the UN is such a failure, and it’s charter is the prime reason.

alextheparrot 6y ago
Would learning that the diplomatic channels of the UN were some of the methods used to relay information during, for example, the Cuban middle crisis change your opinion? The comparison seems to lack historical context, the UN has been involved into international diplomatic actions relating to nuclear war far more than any footballers. I think the “spreading democracy” mindset is wholly unsubstantiated, as most of the wars you mentioned were predicated on either preserving or spreading democracy. If we need war to prevent war, it seems that there can be no peace.
- valuearb 6y ago
  There is no peace as long as authoritarian regimes threaten democratic nations and their own peoples.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Yes and no. Yes, there is not real peace, and there is not peace even within such nations. That difference (between authoritarian and non-authoritarian) matters. But no, even with authoritarian regimes in existence, there is a difference between "shooting war" and "no shooting war". That difference matters, too.
  - vkou 6y ago
    A bad peace is better than a good war. As anyone who's ever had a war fought on their soil will tell you. When was the last time a war has been fought on your country's soil? How many times since then has your country brought war to another's? Your opinion might change were you on the receiving end of these adventures.