Jimcat
Culture Vulture
There are things that the UN could be, and things that it is.
For what it is, I think that the UN does an excellent job on things like disaster relief and educational and human services development. Perhaps that is all it should be. Using the UN to resolve military conflicts is awkward at best, and sometimes totally ineffective.
The UN was formed during the Cold War, when the world was dominated by two superpowers with conflicting ideologies and huge nuclear arsenals. Prior to WWII, if a great power felt that its interests were threatened, that power would step in and unilaterally take care of things. If another power disagreed, there would be negotiations, compromises, and trade-offs, but it very rarely led to war. Aside from the Russo-Japanese War, Europe was at peace from 1871 to 1914 despite all of the police actions and colonial conflicts that occurred during that time. Likewise, WWII grew out of an unjustified land and power grab, rather than a nation's valid protection of its interests.
But once the nuclear superpowers came onto the scene, the equation changed. The USA and USSR wouldn't let the other side exercise military power in its interest, because of the ideological conflict, and they couldn't afford to let the arguments escalate, because of the danger of global thermonuclear war. But at the same time, they couldn't leave the rest of the world to anarchy and chaos. So the UN was formed.
Ironically, the UN organizations that have done the most good -- the health, education, and disaster relief services -- were almost afterthoughts to the political maneuvering that created the UN in the first place.
I could go on about how I think the world should be governed, but I don't feel like ruffling too many feathers today. Suffice it to say that the UN is not a world government, and I see no reason for it to become one.
For what it is, I think that the UN does an excellent job on things like disaster relief and educational and human services development. Perhaps that is all it should be. Using the UN to resolve military conflicts is awkward at best, and sometimes totally ineffective.
The UN was formed during the Cold War, when the world was dominated by two superpowers with conflicting ideologies and huge nuclear arsenals. Prior to WWII, if a great power felt that its interests were threatened, that power would step in and unilaterally take care of things. If another power disagreed, there would be negotiations, compromises, and trade-offs, but it very rarely led to war. Aside from the Russo-Japanese War, Europe was at peace from 1871 to 1914 despite all of the police actions and colonial conflicts that occurred during that time. Likewise, WWII grew out of an unjustified land and power grab, rather than a nation's valid protection of its interests.
But once the nuclear superpowers came onto the scene, the equation changed. The USA and USSR wouldn't let the other side exercise military power in its interest, because of the ideological conflict, and they couldn't afford to let the arguments escalate, because of the danger of global thermonuclear war. But at the same time, they couldn't leave the rest of the world to anarchy and chaos. So the UN was formed.
Ironically, the UN organizations that have done the most good -- the health, education, and disaster relief services -- were almost afterthoughts to the political maneuvering that created the UN in the first place.
I could go on about how I think the world should be governed, but I don't feel like ruffling too many feathers today. Suffice it to say that the UN is not a world government, and I see no reason for it to become one.
