6 ms·

The UN is pretty useless at this point. A member of its staff that is conducting an investigation can have their life threaded freely by a member government and

The UN is pretty useless at this point. A member of its staff that is conducting an investigation can have their life threaded freely by a member government and the UN is powerless to do anything about it (because its member states only pay lip service to their commitments, which is shameful). I am saying this as someone who Grandfather worked there as part of a delegation and has fond memories of visits to the UN as a child.

programmertote 6y ago
It always has been a powerless organization. I'm a Myanmar citizen and I grew up thinking naively that one day, the UN would come and free us from the military dictatorship. It never happened and I eventually got scholarships to study in the US. Before I left for the US, I learned more about the UN and how its affiliated NGOs work/function (e.g., UNICEF) when volunteering at a couple of NGOs that work with the UN. Since then, my impression on UN has never been lower. Now that the military coup happened a couple of months ago, and seeing the UN being the same old, I am not surprised. Most of Myanmar people, including my mother who is living there, are pinning their hopes on the UN to save them from this coup. I feel really sorry for them about believing in such a false hope.
- jmiskovic 6y ago
  I'd like to hear more, could you share about your experiences with UN at NGOs?
  - programmertote 6y ago
    I have replied to someone who asked similar question [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26561860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26561860]. Hope this is helpful. Please talk to local/native workers of the organization (not as a stranger because they may not tell you everything at first) and see what their grievances are about the NGO that they are working for.
- wp381640 6y ago
  I’d like to hear more about your experiences with UNICEF. It’s one of the only places I donate to and I’ve heard many first hand experiences of where they’ve saved lives and provided opportunity
  - jules-jules 6y ago
    I think UNICEF is a better one to donate to, so is OHCHR. More wary about UNDP.
  - programmertote 6y ago
    I would say one has to volunteer as a native person (not a foreigner who usually "oversees" the projects and operations there) to see how lazy and incompetent the people there are. For example, the country director is usually not in the office (in my three months of volunteering there, I saw her maybe twice; mind you, she is not traveling to the project sites because we have logs showing exactly who is traveling where at what time), but she would show up though at the social events like the party hosted by the US embassy or the high-class society there. The pay disparity is very stark between foreign directors/managers vs. the local/native managers who actually have to do the grunt work. The foreigners are provided with very good housing allowance (my mom rent her home and she always says her dream is to rent it to a foreigner from an NGO because they pay the most money), car+driver, education support for their kids, plus a annual salary of $100K+ (that was 2004 when I volunteered) which is very good for the amount of work she actually puts in. In contrast, the average local/native manager's annual salary in the office ranges between $4000 and $6000 (maybe at most 2-3 local managers earned $6000 per year when I volunteered there). In my opinion, the foreign managers/directors never took the time to understand what the local population needs and make decisions on what projects to do based on their biases (and what will look good for photo-op). They sit in their air-conditioned offices or houses and do bare minimum. The most important thing for them is to look good in front of donors and to be able to move to a better country (new country director arrives every 2-3 years). Since donation is important to them, they spend more time soliciting money than actually doing the job. Please always keep in mind that these NGOs and UNGOs live off of donations and the more conflicts/issues they can conjure in the photos/news/media, the better it is for them. I volunteered at World Concern and World Vision as well. Same experience. My sister worked at a French NGO called ACTED [https://www.acted.org/en/ https://www.acted.org/en/] for 2+ years as a logistics and administrative staff. Same experience. That's why I never trust anything that the NGOs say and I always donate directly to local NGOs/groups.
- jonny_eh 6y ago
  How is the UN supposed to stop a military coup?
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    In the past, via a UN Peacekeeping detachment. https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/military https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/military Peacekeeping missions have operated as recently as 2004-2017 in Haiti to stabilize the country after a coup (MINUSTAH).
    - programmertote 6y ago
      Most Myanmar people are hoping that there will be some UN peacekeeping troops so that the military cannot just load up machine guns on the truck (e.g., https://scontent.fewr1-5.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/163001326_10102799034788779_4937951838886716922_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=iy379V_WB1sAX_CeeNz&_nc_oc=AQlb4qr6dZxzqo9QCgfOueXb6zRjoiM9yTy4nRmsK3Nrk3EUsdtye2cY4mSCfIWaKQA&_nc_ht=scontent.fewr1-5.fna&oh=b4a362acf4bf7c6077163b39417cf419&oe=607F7077 https://scontent.fewr1-5.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/163001326_10...) and shoot people randomly (e.g., NSFW image of a 7-year old boy shot and killed today https://scontent.fewr1-6.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/163537200_2455102444633112_3238175677216749690_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=TPaBOJ0G0pwAX8wCyzm&_nc_ht=scontent.fewr1-6.fna&oh=235ff4ea81372f48210b0b2843934b5c&oe=607E75F4 https://scontent.fewr1-6.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/163537200_24...). I personally don't trust in UN and don't think of them as an effective organization.
    - IAmEveryone 6y ago
      Peacekeeping , as the name implies, only works after a ceasefire is reached. The UN does not invade countries
  - chmod775 6y ago
    When they say "I grew up thinking" obviously they're not referring to the recent coup or the time after. Myanmar was under effective military rule for a long time and only made strides towards becoming a liberal democracy in the last decade - until the coup happened.
- cosmodisk 6y ago
  As bad as it sounds but nobody's going to move a finger as long as they think it won't spread outside the country. Look at Ukraine- it's almost right in the middle of Europe and the conflict is still ongoing 5 years later. Many governments also understand how little their own citizens want their country to be engaged in some military conflicts thousands of miles away. The only chance for the country is its own people when they decide it's enough.
- GekkePrutser 6y ago
  The security council in particular is pretty much set up for a never-ending stalemate as all superpowers have a veto and usually at least one of them always has a finger (or at the very least some vested interests) in any kind of nastiness happening around the world. And sadly, the ones where really none of them have any interests, it's not on their radar to do anything about it. I do wonder if it really had a hand in preventing world wars etc.. Somehow I doubt it as these things tend to get sorted out in direct negotiations (like back in the day with Reagan and Gorbachev, and the Cuban missile crisis - which was the trigger for a direct hotline to be set up between the US and USSR if I remember correctly). I hope one day we grow up as a species... :(
  - tim333 6y ago
    It kind of provides a distraction from countries attacking each other as they can argue for ages in the UN which may not achieve anything but is better than launching invasions.
- illustriousbear 6y ago
  The UN's main benefit is that it gets a bunch of nations around a table to discuss various issues. This is something that should not be underestimated. Unfortunately if the UN could directly exercise authority over nations, many nations would simply just leave.
DSingularity 6y ago
At this point? Look at the UN decisions concerning Palestine. Those are as old as the UN and they were never respected by anybody.
monksy 6y ago
Let's also mention the intentional burying of the direct action by the UN HR's giving the names of dissidents to China. https://www.wionews.com/world/whistleblower-accuses-un-human-rights-office-of-helping-china-keep-an-eye-on-dissidents-301414 https://www.wionews.com/world/whistleblower-accuses-un-human...
13415 6y ago
If I may ask: What use do you think the UN should have? Should it be like a military force? Should it be a world government? I'm asking because the UN has arguably more power and influence now than it had during Cold War, although its primary purpose was to get East and West on the same table during Cold War and provide a platform where all countries on earth could meet. It nowadays organizes and serves as an umbrella for a vast number of cultural and developmental programs, from concrete food relief missions to counter-terrorism.[1] You need to keep in mind that the UN's purpose never was and never has been to confront nations or blocks, let alone to govern or serve as an international police force. That's not its purpose and could never be, given that almost all countries are part of it. [1] https://research.un.org/en/docs/unsystem/fundsprogs https://research.un.org/en/docs/unsystem/fundsprogs
- restalis 6y ago
  "What use do you think the UN should have? Should it be like a military force?" "UN's purpose never was and never has been to confront nations or blocks" That's funny, because Wikipedia tells us that UN "aims to maintain international peace and security" and it was involved in a war shortly after its establishment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
- myrandomcomment 6y ago
  The primary purpose had nothing to do with the specific idea of getting East and West to the same table. It was a reaction to the horror of WWII and the failure of the League of Nations. At is founding the path of Cold War was not clear. The charter was signed by the 51 members in June 1945 in San Francisco (the meeting started in April). I am very familiar with the history as I learned it on my grandfathers knee. I have pictures of him at the first full security council meeting in 1946. If the UN is unable to censure / expel a member for a threat on a UN staffers life as a matter of government policy then the UN should just not even spend the time on these type of issues. The reality is for all the good it does, it powerless in most things because the member states do not stand up for the basic founding principles. I think that the western democracies would be better off building their own replacement where membership is predicated on a shared set of rules around freedom and human rights. Neither Russia, China or Saudi Arabia would qualify.
consumer451 6y ago
> The UN is pretty useless at this point. A member of its staff that is conducting an investigation can have their life threaded freely by a member government and the UN is powerless to do anything about it How would this analysis look if applied to the USA? Steve Bannon publicly called for the beheading of Dr. Fauci, a government official, and faces no real repercussions. Is the US government useless?
- myrandomcomment 6y ago
  How is this related? We have freedom of the press and speech in the USA, which means in general you get to say whatever dumb thing you want. It does not mean you are free of the consequences of doing so. He made those comments a citizen and not a member of a sitting government. If the comments where made when he was a sitting government official I would expect there to be consequences, however given the last 4 years I am not sure that accountability in politics is a thing anymore. We have entered an era where the "Ministry Of Truth" world view seems to get a pass form the public. The UN thing is a sitting government official threatening the life of a member of an international body of which they are a member of. The question is that the policy of Saudi Arabia? If so the UN should hold them accountable with censure or being expelled as this is obvious a volition of their membership. The fact that the UN can basically do zero is the reason it is useless.
  - Ansil849 6y ago
    > We have freedom of the press and speech in the USA, which means in general you get to say whatever dumb thing you want. True threats, such as calling for someone to be murdered, are not covered by the first amendment.
    - myrandomcomment 6y ago
      Correct. If there is a belief that Bannon was not just being his normal blowhard jerk self I am sure the police would have had a chat with him. In the US, the Brandenburg v. Ohio case in 1969 limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In the case here with the UN, the Saudi government has been proven to be responsible for the planning and death of a dissident, which apply the logic above the threat was credible and the police should show up at their door. The issue is there is no "police" here expect the UN itself and they will do nothing because they are powerless.
monocasa 6y ago
It was always a toothless organization, and it was designed to be that way.
- xxpor 6y ago
  Toothless if you're a permanent SC member, or are supported by one. The folks being tried at the ICTY probably don't think it's very toothless.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    I would say toothless for any state, but not for individuals. The individuals being tried by the ICTY are sort of by definition not being supported by any state (the ones that were got their cases transferred to those states).
IAmEveryone 6y ago
A UN SecGen was assassinated in the 60s, so this isn’t unprecedented. The complaining about supposed shortcomings of the UN is tired and misguided. The UN is far more than just the Security Council and matters of high politicking. It’s also UNHCR, on which million of refugees depend for their life. It’s security forces almost literally acting as hostages to secure the peace in dozens of stale conflicts. It’s the ITU, iSO, and whatever their mail agency is called providing the basic necessities for international trade, travel, and communication. It obviously has some power to establish international law and decency, or otherwise that Saudi two-bit dictator wouldn’t feel threatened enough to make threads himself, and it’s obviously relevant enough for that thread to remain all bark and no bite. In terms of international justice, the UN has successfully run dozens of tribunals and investigations, from Libanon to the Balkans to Ruanda. Yes, other matters see little progress. Politics is slowly boring holes into thick wood or whatever the saying is. That has little to do with the UN, which is just a forum for nation states to talk. Those matters simply have no solution that everyone agrees to (yet), In that vain, it’s a mistake to even expect the UN to have the sort of power to force its own will onto states, or to even expect it to have any such will at all. For political questions, the UN does not have an identity, or any power, separate from that of its member states. That’s why it’s headed by a Secretary General, not a President or Prime Minister.
jackifus 6y ago
One benefit of the UN, though it may not take proactive steps, is that it is an outlet to prevent a problem from becoming worse. It's very much cathartic theater. So, when the Soviet Union put down uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia that were tacitly encouraged by the US, there was a forum whereby the Soviet action could be condemned while avoiding military action that would have made the situation much much worse. Viewing the UN through the lens of cathartic inaction speaks to a different kind of utility.
- bluefirebrand 6y ago
  I'm sure that the people in Hu gary and Czechoslovakia were thrilled that it didn't escalate beyond that. What a relief!
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    Given how 99.9% of wars end up for the people in whose country the war is waged, yes, the people of Hungary and Czechosovachia are probably thankful.
- rblatz 6y ago
  I'm not sure why you are downvoted, but you are correct. The UN was created to prevent another world war. Which it has been successful at.
  - jgon 6y ago
    Nuclear weapons and basically nothing else is why there has not been another world war. The UN has had absolutely no part in this outcome and I struggle to think of any positive thing it has been successful at, beside possibly peacekeeping missions, for the entirety of its existence.
    - sofixa 6y ago
      The Cuban Missile crisis got pretty far with nuclear weapons, and UN embarrassment and pressure played a part in the USSR's response and ultimate back down.
amarant 6y ago
I mean, it was founded after ww2 to keep anything like that from ever happening again. They've been doing ok in that front so far.... I think a lot of posters in this thread are getting their hopes up a bit too high and are starting to expect things from the UN that it was never meant to do. The UN peace corps is not a particularly mighty military force, they're not world police. Basically, the UN is not Team America, and I don't think it should be. (That's a reference to the movie by the same name btw, not a comment on relations with any nation)
vkou 6y ago
The UN is by design, not supposed to be a world government, or a world police. It's supposed to be a forum for countries to talk to eachother. And it's pretty successful at being that.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
At policing I think you're right, they are quite flaccid, but organizations such WHO and UNICEF are somewhat successful as well as peacekeepers when they're "welcome" by both sides.
justnotworthit 6y ago
Counterpoint: If it were useless, the Saudi officials wouldn't have felt it necessary to threaten anyone.
koheripbal 6y ago
It is a diplomatic body only. The function of the UN is to formalize dialogue to prevent the confusion that escalated the first world war, and some degree of coordination among the nuclear powers to help prevent WWIII. It was not then - and is not now, an organization meant to further human rights, nor to enforce global will upon its members.

programmertote 6y ago

It always has been a powerless organization. I'm a Myanmar citizen and I grew up thinking naively that one day, the UN would come and free us from the military dictatorship. It never happened and I eventually got scholarships to study in the US. Before I left for the US, I learned more about the UN and how its affiliated NGOs work/function (e.g., UNICEF) when volunteering at a couple of NGOs that work with the UN. Since then, my impression on UN has never been lower. Now that the military coup happened a couple of months ago, and seeing the UN being the same old, I am not surprised. Most of Myanmar people, including my mother who is living there, are pinning their hopes on the UN to save them from this coup. I feel really sorry for them about believing in such a false hope.

jmiskovic 6y ago
I'd like to hear more, could you share about your experiences with UN at NGOs?
- programmertote 6y ago
  I have replied to someone who asked similar question [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26561860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26561860]. Hope this is helpful. Please talk to local/native workers of the organization (not as a stranger because they may not tell you everything at first) and see what their grievances are about the NGO that they are working for.
wp381640 6y ago
I’d like to hear more about your experiences with UNICEF. It’s one of the only places I donate to and I’ve heard many first hand experiences of where they’ve saved lives and provided opportunity
- jules-jules 6y ago
  I think UNICEF is a better one to donate to, so is OHCHR. More wary about UNDP.
- programmertote 6y ago
  I would say one has to volunteer as a native person (not a foreigner who usually "oversees" the projects and operations there) to see how lazy and incompetent the people there are. For example, the country director is usually not in the office (in my three months of volunteering there, I saw her maybe twice; mind you, she is not traveling to the project sites because we have logs showing exactly who is traveling where at what time), but she would show up though at the social events like the party hosted by the US embassy or the high-class society there. The pay disparity is very stark between foreign directors/managers vs. the local/native managers who actually have to do the grunt work. The foreigners are provided with very good housing allowance (my mom rent her home and she always says her dream is to rent it to a foreigner from an NGO because they pay the most money), car+driver, education support for their kids, plus a annual salary of $100K+ (that was 2004 when I volunteered) which is very good for the amount of work she actually puts in. In contrast, the average local/native manager's annual salary in the office ranges between $4000 and $6000 (maybe at most 2-3 local managers earned $6000 per year when I volunteered there). In my opinion, the foreign managers/directors never took the time to understand what the local population needs and make decisions on what projects to do based on their biases (and what will look good for photo-op). They sit in their air-conditioned offices or houses and do bare minimum. The most important thing for them is to look good in front of donors and to be able to move to a better country (new country director arrives every 2-3 years). Since donation is important to them, they spend more time soliciting money than actually doing the job. Please always keep in mind that these NGOs and UNGOs live off of donations and the more conflicts/issues they can conjure in the photos/news/media, the better it is for them. I volunteered at World Concern and World Vision as well. Same experience. My sister worked at a French NGO called ACTED [https://www.acted.org/en/ https://www.acted.org/en/] for 2+ years as a logistics and administrative staff. Same experience. That's why I never trust anything that the NGOs say and I always donate directly to local NGOs/groups.
jonny_eh 6y ago
How is the UN supposed to stop a military coup?
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  In the past, via a UN Peacekeeping detachment. https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/military https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/military Peacekeeping missions have operated as recently as 2004-2017 in Haiti to stabilize the country after a coup (MINUSTAH).
  - programmertote 6y ago
    Most Myanmar people are hoping that there will be some UN peacekeeping troops so that the military cannot just load up machine guns on the truck (e.g., https://scontent.fewr1-5.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/163001326_10102799034788779_4937951838886716922_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=iy379V_WB1sAX_CeeNz&_nc_oc=AQlb4qr6dZxzqo9QCgfOueXb6zRjoiM9yTy4nRmsK3Nrk3EUsdtye2cY4mSCfIWaKQA&_nc_ht=scontent.fewr1-5.fna&oh=b4a362acf4bf7c6077163b39417cf419&oe=607F7077 https://scontent.fewr1-5.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/163001326_10...) and shoot people randomly (e.g., NSFW image of a 7-year old boy shot and killed today https://scontent.fewr1-6.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/163537200_2455102444633112_3238175677216749690_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=TPaBOJ0G0pwAX8wCyzm&_nc_ht=scontent.fewr1-6.fna&oh=235ff4ea81372f48210b0b2843934b5c&oe=607E75F4 https://scontent.fewr1-6.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/163537200_24...). I personally don't trust in UN and don't think of them as an effective organization.
  - IAmEveryone 6y ago
    Peacekeeping , as the name implies, only works after a ceasefire is reached. The UN does not invade countries
- chmod775 6y ago
  When they say "I grew up thinking" obviously they're not referring to the recent coup or the time after. Myanmar was under effective military rule for a long time and only made strides towards becoming a liberal democracy in the last decade - until the coup happened.
cosmodisk 6y ago
As bad as it sounds but nobody's going to move a finger as long as they think it won't spread outside the country. Look at Ukraine- it's almost right in the middle of Europe and the conflict is still ongoing 5 years later. Many governments also understand how little their own citizens want their country to be engaged in some military conflicts thousands of miles away. The only chance for the country is its own people when they decide it's enough.
GekkePrutser 6y ago
The security council in particular is pretty much set up for a never-ending stalemate as all superpowers have a veto and usually at least one of them always has a finger (or at the very least some vested interests) in any kind of nastiness happening around the world. And sadly, the ones where really none of them have any interests, it's not on their radar to do anything about it. I do wonder if it really had a hand in preventing world wars etc.. Somehow I doubt it as these things tend to get sorted out in direct negotiations (like back in the day with Reagan and Gorbachev, and the Cuban missile crisis - which was the trigger for a direct hotline to be set up between the US and USSR if I remember correctly). I hope one day we grow up as a species... :(
- tim333 6y ago
  It kind of provides a distraction from countries attacking each other as they can argue for ages in the UN which may not achieve anything but is better than launching invasions.
illustriousbear 6y ago
The UN's main benefit is that it gets a bunch of nations around a table to discuss various issues. This is something that should not be underestimated. Unfortunately if the UN could directly exercise authority over nations, many nations would simply just leave.

DSingularity 6y ago

At this point? Look at the UN decisions concerning Palestine. Those are as old as the UN and they were never respected by anybody.

monksy 6y ago

Let's also mention the intentional burying of the direct action by the UN HR's giving the names of dissidents to China. https://www.wionews.com/world/whistleblower-accuses-un-human-rights-office-of-helping-china-keep-an-eye-on-dissidents-301414 https://www.wionews.com/world/whistleblower-accuses-un-human...

13415 6y ago

If I may ask: What use do you think the UN should have? Should it be like a military force? Should it be a world government? I'm asking because the UN has arguably more power and influence now than it had during Cold War, although its primary purpose was to get East and West on the same table during Cold War and provide a platform where all countries on earth could meet. It nowadays organizes and serves as an umbrella for a vast number of cultural and developmental programs, from concrete food relief missions to counter-terrorism.[1] You need to keep in mind that the UN's purpose never was and never has been to confront nations or blocks, let alone to govern or serve as an international police force. That's not its purpose and could never be, given that almost all countries are part of it. [1] https://research.un.org/en/docs/unsystem/fundsprogs https://research.un.org/en/docs/unsystem/fundsprogs

restalis 6y ago
"What use do you think the UN should have? Should it be like a military force?" "UN's purpose never was and never has been to confront nations or blocks" That's funny, because Wikipedia tells us that UN "aims to maintain international peace and security" and it was involved in a war shortly after its establishment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
myrandomcomment 6y ago
The primary purpose had nothing to do with the specific idea of getting East and West to the same table. It was a reaction to the horror of WWII and the failure of the League of Nations. At is founding the path of Cold War was not clear. The charter was signed by the 51 members in June 1945 in San Francisco (the meeting started in April). I am very familiar with the history as I learned it on my grandfathers knee. I have pictures of him at the first full security council meeting in 1946. If the UN is unable to censure / expel a member for a threat on a UN staffers life as a matter of government policy then the UN should just not even spend the time on these type of issues. The reality is for all the good it does, it powerless in most things because the member states do not stand up for the basic founding principles. I think that the western democracies would be better off building their own replacement where membership is predicated on a shared set of rules around freedom and human rights. Neither Russia, China or Saudi Arabia would qualify.

consumer451 6y ago

> The UN is pretty useless at this point. A member of its staff that is conducting an investigation can have their life threaded freely by a member government and the UN is powerless to do anything about it How would this analysis look if applied to the USA? Steve Bannon publicly called for the beheading of Dr. Fauci, a government official, and faces no real repercussions. Is the US government useless?

myrandomcomment 6y ago
How is this related? We have freedom of the press and speech in the USA, which means in general you get to say whatever dumb thing you want. It does not mean you are free of the consequences of doing so. He made those comments a citizen and not a member of a sitting government. If the comments where made when he was a sitting government official I would expect there to be consequences, however given the last 4 years I am not sure that accountability in politics is a thing anymore. We have entered an era where the "Ministry Of Truth" world view seems to get a pass form the public. The UN thing is a sitting government official threatening the life of a member of an international body of which they are a member of. The question is that the policy of Saudi Arabia? If so the UN should hold them accountable with censure or being expelled as this is obvious a volition of their membership. The fact that the UN can basically do zero is the reason it is useless.
- Ansil849 6y ago
  > We have freedom of the press and speech in the USA, which means in general you get to say whatever dumb thing you want. True threats, such as calling for someone to be murdered, are not covered by the first amendment.
  - myrandomcomment 6y ago
    Correct. If there is a belief that Bannon was not just being his normal blowhard jerk self I am sure the police would have had a chat with him. In the US, the Brandenburg v. Ohio case in 1969 limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In the case here with the UN, the Saudi government has been proven to be responsible for the planning and death of a dissident, which apply the logic above the threat was credible and the police should show up at their door. The issue is there is no "police" here expect the UN itself and they will do nothing because they are powerless.

monocasa 6y ago

It was always a toothless organization, and it was designed to be that way.

xxpor 6y ago
Toothless if you're a permanent SC member, or are supported by one. The folks being tried at the ICTY probably don't think it's very toothless.
- monocasa 6y ago
  I would say toothless for any state, but not for individuals. The individuals being tried by the ICTY are sort of by definition not being supported by any state (the ones that were got their cases transferred to those states).

IAmEveryone 6y ago

A UN SecGen was assassinated in the 60s, so this isn’t unprecedented. The complaining about supposed shortcomings of the UN is tired and misguided. The UN is far more than just the Security Council and matters of high politicking. It’s also UNHCR, on which million of refugees depend for their life. It’s security forces almost literally acting as hostages to secure the peace in dozens of stale conflicts. It’s the ITU, iSO, and whatever their mail agency is called providing the basic necessities for international trade, travel, and communication. It obviously has some power to establish international law and decency, or otherwise that Saudi two-bit dictator wouldn’t feel threatened enough to make threads himself, and it’s obviously relevant enough for that thread to remain all bark and no bite. In terms of international justice, the UN has successfully run dozens of tribunals and investigations, from Libanon to the Balkans to Ruanda. Yes, other matters see little progress. Politics is slowly boring holes into thick wood or whatever the saying is. That has little to do with the UN, which is just a forum for nation states to talk. Those matters simply have no solution that everyone agrees to (yet), In that vain, it’s a mistake to even expect the UN to have the sort of power to force its own will onto states, or to even expect it to have any such will at all. For political questions, the UN does not have an identity, or any power, separate from that of its member states. That’s why it’s headed by a Secretary General, not a President or Prime Minister.

jackifus 6y ago

One benefit of the UN, though it may not take proactive steps, is that it is an outlet to prevent a problem from becoming worse. It's very much cathartic theater. So, when the Soviet Union put down uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia that were tacitly encouraged by the US, there was a forum whereby the Soviet action could be condemned while avoiding military action that would have made the situation much much worse. Viewing the UN through the lens of cathartic inaction speaks to a different kind of utility.

bluefirebrand 6y ago
I'm sure that the people in Hu gary and Czechoslovakia were thrilled that it didn't escalate beyond that. What a relief!
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  Given how 99.9% of wars end up for the people in whose country the war is waged, yes, the people of Hungary and Czechosovachia are probably thankful.
rblatz 6y ago
I'm not sure why you are downvoted, but you are correct. The UN was created to prevent another world war. Which it has been successful at.
- jgon 6y ago
  Nuclear weapons and basically nothing else is why there has not been another world war. The UN has had absolutely no part in this outcome and I struggle to think of any positive thing it has been successful at, beside possibly peacekeeping missions, for the entirety of its existence.
  - sofixa 6y ago
    The Cuban Missile crisis got pretty far with nuclear weapons, and UN embarrassment and pressure played a part in the USSR's response and ultimate back down.

amarant 6y ago

I mean, it was founded after ww2 to keep anything like that from ever happening again. They've been doing ok in that front so far.... I think a lot of posters in this thread are getting their hopes up a bit too high and are starting to expect things from the UN that it was never meant to do. The UN peace corps is not a particularly mighty military force, they're not world police. Basically, the UN is not Team America, and I don't think it should be. (That's a reference to the movie by the same name btw, not a comment on relations with any nation)

vkou 6y ago

The UN is by design, not supposed to be a world government, or a world police. It's supposed to be a forum for countries to talk to eachother. And it's pretty successful at being that.

stjohnswarts 6y ago

At policing I think you're right, they are quite flaccid, but organizations such WHO and UNICEF are somewhat successful as well as peacekeepers when they're "welcome" by both sides.

justnotworthit 6y ago

Counterpoint: If it were useless, the Saudi officials wouldn't have felt it necessary to threaten anyone.

koheripbal 6y ago

It is a diplomatic body only. The function of the UN is to formalize dialogue to prevent the confusion that escalated the first world war, and some degree of coordination among the nuclear powers to help prevent WWIII. It was not then - and is not now, an organization meant to further human rights, nor to enforce global will upon its members.