3 ms·

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

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.

13415 6y ago
I wish I could agree but you're misrepresenting history and fail entirely to understand the UN's main purpose. Not just the failure of the League of Nations was reason for the founding of the UN, it was definitely also designed as a way to bring opposing blocks of the East and West to the table. The path of the Cold War was very clear and present at the time the UN was founded. People at RAND Corporation were discussing whether the US should attack Russia with a series of nuclear strikes in a "preventive war." The main goal of the UN was (and still is) to prevent WW3 and the destruction of humanity, that's why maintaining peace is its main goal. I'm sure your grandfather told you that but maybe you don't remember it. Building your own "replacement" is kind of silly. Not only are there already plenty of such organizations that only include allied countries (on all sides), they could not possibly replace an organization whose purpose is to bring all nations to a common table - especially those nations who are not befriended with each other. A platform to meet and talk outside of mere bilateral diplomacy is a prerequisite for preventing large scale wars and conflicts, and that's the primary reason why the UN exists. Read the UN preamble.
- myrandomcomment 6y ago
  The only thing we should do is everything needed to cause the collapse of all the morally reprehensible regimes in the world. That means dialogue, but no economic engagement or investment and keeping containment. It also means maintaining a reasonable level of defense spending to hurt the other sides economy. The idea that western human rights values would win went out with the current state of world re:China. Their model is one that has to be stopped. Failure to do so will be catastrophic. We already have the election of Trump, the right wing governments and populism (hurting the rule of law) in several EU members as proof of the dangerous path we could fall down. We (western democracies) lack a moral compass at this point.

13415 6y ago

I wish I could agree but you're misrepresenting history and fail entirely to understand the UN's main purpose. Not just the failure of the League of Nations was reason for the founding of the UN, it was definitely also designed as a way to bring opposing blocks of the East and West to the table. The path of the Cold War was very clear and present at the time the UN was founded. People at RAND Corporation were discussing whether the US should attack Russia with a series of nuclear strikes in a "preventive war." The main goal of the UN was (and still is) to prevent WW3 and the destruction of humanity, that's why maintaining peace is its main goal. I'm sure your grandfather told you that but maybe you don't remember it. Building your own "replacement" is kind of silly. Not only are there already plenty of such organizations that only include allied countries (on all sides), they could not possibly replace an organization whose purpose is to bring all nations to a common table - especially those nations who are not befriended with each other. A platform to meet and talk outside of mere bilateral diplomacy is a prerequisite for preventing large scale wars and conflicts, and that's the primary reason why the UN exists. Read the UN preamble.

myrandomcomment 6y ago
The only thing we should do is everything needed to cause the collapse of all the morally reprehensible regimes in the world. That means dialogue, but no economic engagement or investment and keeping containment. It also means maintaining a reasonable level of defense spending to hurt the other sides economy. The idea that western human rights values would win went out with the current state of world re:China. Their model is one that has to be stopped. Failure to do so will be catastrophic. We already have the election of Trump, the right wing governments and populism (hurting the rule of law) in several EU members as proof of the dangerous path we could fall down. We (western democracies) lack a moral compass at this point.