How do you evaluate the credibility of the UN ? What's the benifit of being a member in this union ? Does it fulfil its aims when it was established ?

In my opinion, the United Nations is just a name and Arab countries better withdraw from it for some reasons:

- VETO is absolute unfair. One country ( Among the five countries which have VETO ) can cancel an order or suggestion done in census. ( How many times did the US VETO-ed against any resolution for protecting Palestinians or condemning Israel )

- It's helpless when it comes to the big countries like the US. The US invaded Iraq without the legalisation of the UN. As many other countries, so what's the purpose of it ?

- There are many masacres and humiliations against human rights and the UN does nothing to stop it, though its role is stopping such things.

- Conntrolled by the US.

- Did nothing positive for us Arabs.


So what's the point of filling the UN budget without getting any benefit of it ?

Share what you think.


P.S: I would like the Mods to do a poll since I couldn't do it. Saying: How do you rate the UN credibility ( From one to ten )

I think the UN should be abolished immediately because it is a corrupt ineffective organization.

Besides, it occupies some of the most expensive real estate in the world.

I think the UN should be abolished immediately because it is a corrupt ineffective organization.

Besides, it occupies some of the most expensive real estate in the world.

Elaborate please. How is it corrupt and ineffective ?


Thanks Spirit for the help.

- Did nothing positive for us Arabs.


So what's the point of filling the UN budget without getting any benefit of it ?

Share what you think.


Ask not what the UN can do for Arabs, ask what Arabs can do for the UN.

I think the UN has its positives and negatives and there def. is politiking going on but the concept of the UN is good just needs a little more work.

Food for oil scandal.
UN Secretary Generals son implicated in above scandal.
Sexual assault by peacekeeps in Africa.

What more is needed ?

Ask not what the UN can do for Arabs, ask what Arabs can do for the UN.

They are paying for it so they are doing things for it. But what did it do for them ? And why did you only pick this point ? What do you think of the others ? Like thr VETO for example.

I think the UN has its positives and negatives and there def. is politiking going on but the concept of the UN is good just needs a little more work.

Yah you mean more work like reform ? the US is demanding a reform in the UN now, I wonder what they are up to ?

Food for oil scandal.
UN Secretary Generals son implicated in above scandal.
Sexual assault by peacekeeps in Africa.

What more is needed ?

Very interesting.

Def. in need of reform and because it is an organization of United Nations there has to be a consistency on how to deal with global issues. Look at things sometimes on a cultural perspective. What works in your culture might not work in someone elses...thinking outside the box. Evolve.

They are paying for it so they are doing things for it. But what did it do for them ? And why did you only pick this point ? What do you think of the others ? Like thr VETO for example.

One of the very first things the UN ever tried to do was create a Palestinian state (much bigger than the one now) and make Jerusalem and independent city, free from rule by any one religion.

Guess who vetoed that?

Def. in need of reform and because it is an organization of United Nations there has to be a consistency on how to deal with global issues. Look at things sometimes on a cultural perspective. What works in your culture might not work in someone elses...thinking outside the box. Evolve.

Helping countries and preventing wars has nothing to do with culture. And what do you think of five countries having the right to VETO against any UN decision taken by census ? And do you think that the UN is controlled by the US ? I know you are american but I trust your honesty.

One of the very first things the UN ever tried to do was create a Palestinian state (much bigger than the one now) and make Jerusalem and independent city, free from rule by any one religion.

Guess who vetoed that?

Yah thanks you reminded me of this as well. The UN ( Which is supposed to help countries ) approved the invasion on Palestine. And you still haven't answered my question about the VETO, do you think it's fair ?

Well, I think it does because when you go into a country that is vastly different than your own and you think your rules and regulations are going to work they at times will not. Sometimes have to tailor to the needs of that country.

I think I studied enough on poli sci in college and grad school along with my years in the military and govt to know just enough to see what works and what sucks.

I know there are hidden agendas but the US isn't the only scapegoat.

Culture - Beacon of the Future (Praeger Studies on the 21st Century).

By D. Paul Schafer. “Preface: There is mounting evidence to suggest that culture will play a powerful role in the world of the future. One evidence of this is the growing importance of culture in individual, institutional, community, national and international affairs, as confirmed by the creation of a World Commission on Culture and Development and a World Decade for Cultural Development by UNESCO and the United Nations.

They are paying for it so they are doing things for it. But what did it do for them ? And why did you only pick this point ? What do you think of the others ? Like thr VETO for example.

You're being rather selective and limited in your scope.

Across the Middle East, the UN has sponsored projects and research that have addressed development issues and policies. There's currently a project in place to provide support to Arab States in their pursuit of economic and social reform and economic multilateral cooperation - the specific program I'm thinking of has been in place since 1996. There is also a social welfare services and social security program in addition to a program aimed to look at strategies to support sustainable livelihood in the Arab region. These projects are regional in scope.

There are also many, many, many country-specific programs in place that have resulted from government requests, support, and general need. The include:

In Bahrain there is a project in place to examine social policy design, planning and coordination. Its chief aim is to develop a reform plan for the social assistance system that the government in Bahrain has in mind.

In Egypt there are experts in development issues and policies that are looking at Egypt's regional infrastructure planning in order to aid the country in creating an efficient, productive, sustainable, and powerful system that will allow for greater economic growth and prosperity. At the request of the Egyptian government, there is also a program in place to look at energy planning and management in order to provide energy efficiency improvements and greenhouse gas reductions across the entire country. A very important development for an Arab country with no oil wealth of its own in addition to a very large population.

In Jordan there are programs in place to help improve public sector financial management by strengthening the government's income tax department for improved revenue collection. There's another big program in place that looks at social policy design, planning and coordination; it works to provide the formulation of a national strategy in follow-up to the World Summit for Social Development. There's also a major water resources development and management program operating in Jordan which looks at strengthening of the national capacity in water resources planning. Very important for a country with a large transnational population and a growing domestic population.

In Kuwait, there are considerable resources (we're talking million dollar studies, programs, and research projects) in place. To name a few, there is one that addresses development issues and policies, specifically planning for economic and social development, another that focuses on development planning and management, and there's a UNDP sponsored country review that also looks at governance and electoral administration. The UN has provided over US$1,278,792 for a computer-based development planning support system for Kuwait. Research and development doesn't come cheap, but it goes a long way to benefit the people of UN member state nations.

In Qatar there's a program on water resources development and management that looks to study the artificial recharge of groundwater in northern Qatar.

In Syria there are programs on development issues and policies, water resources development and management, and analysis of the water sector in Syria and the formulation of an integrated water resources management project. There are programs that look at macro economic tools for poverty alleviation, there is planning for integrated water resources management to name a few.

In the UAE there are projects that look at UAE specific development issues and policies, of particular interest is one that is looking at women's participation in the economic and social life and an expansive strategic development programme for Abu Dhabi that has, at the latest budget report, cost the UN over US$1,466,364.

In Saudi Arabia development issues and policies are of major concern. There are programs designed and implemented to support economic and social planning and management, others aimed at supporting strategic socio-economic planning, there are various energy related programs including energy planning and management and national energy efficiency programs. There are major studies and programs that address transportation and infrastructure including programs designed to more efficiently provide road and transport management and development.

In Yemen there are programs that were created in the early 1990s that are still in place today. These include programs on development issues and policies with emphasis on governance capacity and institutional reform. There's a program designed to assist Yemen with its water resources development and management. These subprograms include national programs on integrated water resources management, sustainable water resources management, and emergency assistance for the rehabilitation of water supply and sanitation systems in conflict-affected regions of the southern governorates. Over US$8,000,000 has been spent on Yemen-specific issues and concerns.

the VETO things...being dominated by the US makes takes off most of its credibilty!

But that veto works both ways, doesn't it ?

China will always veto any resolution involving Sudan and Burma because they support the terrorist regimes in those countries.

How come no one cries about that, it always has to come to down to Palestine ?

Cosme: All of those are mere theory progrms and projects these countries can get from anywhere else. Besides why are also being selective ? What do you think of the negatives it has ? And they are not small negatives, they are fatal ones.

Cosme, I think El Rey is focused on the issue of the Security Council, not the other bodies of the UN.

Anyway, obviously the way that the Security Council works is incredibly unfair. It used to even be worse during the Cold War, it wasn't just the US who was vetoing, but also the former Soviet Union, so there would constantly be a deadlock.

But that veto works both ways, doesn't it ?

China will always veto any resolution involving Sudan and Burma because they support the terrorist regimes in those countries.

How come no one cries about that, it always has to come to down to Palestine ?

Have you seen the stat?

Have you counted how many times it was used by US versus china?

Would the abuse of any country makes it credible?


Why don’t you take a trip to google before jumping in wudjab?

Seriously, Why don’t you build up some credibility for yourself by talking more sense?


The VETO was most excessively used by two countries:
USA mostly to support Israel
USSR mostly to object to some countries’ membership to the UN

The number of times used by the rest doesn’t compare to these two.

Well, I think it does because when you go into a country that is vastly different than your own and you think your rules and regulations are going to work they at times will not. Sometimes have to tailor to the needs of that country.

I think I studied enough on poli sci in college and grad school along with my years in the military and govt to know just enough to see what works and what sucks.

I know there are hidden agendas but the US isn't the only scapegoat.

Culture - Beacon of the Future (Praeger Studies on the 21st Century).

By D. Paul Schafer. “Preface: There is mounting evidence to suggest that culture will play a powerful role in the world of the future. One evidence of this is the growing importance of culture in individual, institutional, community, national and international affairs, as confirmed by the creation of a World Commission on Culture and Development and a World Decade for Cultural Development by UNESCO and the United Nations.

Marianna put culture aside please. Here am talking about: When the UN can't stop a war or to be controlled by another country or its authority is questioned then its credibility does not exist.

You also haven't answered the questions. Do you mean by the US not the only scapegoat as a yes to the question ?

The two questions only need a Yes/No answer so no need to beat arount the bush.

But that veto works both ways, doesn't it ?

China will always veto any resolution involving Sudan and Burma because they support the terrorist regimes in those countries.
How come no one cries about that, it always has to come to down to Palestine ?

This doesn't make VETO fair as well. We are talking about the general concept of it.

Cosme, I think El Rey is focused on the issue of the Security Council, not the other bodies of the UN.

Anyway, obviously the way that the Security Council works is incredibly unfair. It used to even be worse during the Cold War, it wasn't just the US who was vetoing, but also the former Soviet Union, so there would constantly be a deadlock.

So it's like a place where powerful countries get a legal approval to what they want to do no matter what it is.

I beat around the bush because I am a natural politican.

I already said the UN needs to be revamped and to rexamine the original mission regarding the facilitatation of cooperation regarding international laws.

If we went by the criteria of peace loving state then certain countries would not currently be abiding by the membership guidelines.

Since certain countries contribute a great deal of monies towards the budget I doubt certain countries would be asked to leave.

So we have a quandry.

So we need to realize what is the true mission of the United Nations and give that a go.

Major financial contributers to the UN:

Major contributors to the regular UN budget for 2006
Member Nation (the list is not complete) Contribution (% of total UN budget)

United States 22.00%
Japan 16.624%
Germany 8.66%
United Kingdom 6.13%
France 6.03%
Italy 4.89%
Canada 2.81%
Spain 2.52%
China 2.667%
Mexico 1.88%
Australia 1.59%
Brazil 1.52%

If Arab countries try to bring in a resolution condeming Israel almost every week, then obviously the statistics for the US veto'ing such resolutions will be high.

But since Palestine is your favourite bugbear, you'll only want to look at that.

So it's like a place where powerful countries get a legal approval to what they want to do no matter what it is.

Pretty much. There's one rule for the strong, and another for the weak.

But it's really bad, since it gives other countries an excuse to attack on humanitarian grounds if the security council doesn't approve, such as NATO/Kosovo in 1999.

I think the General Assembly should also have power to authorise armed force, perhaps they would more likely reflect the political will of the international community.

This doesn't make VETO fair as well. We are talking about the general concept of it.

If you're asking about the general concept of the Veto, then yes, of course it makes sense and is rather fair.

You can argue that the purpose of the Veto within the United Nation's Security Council as being primarily in place to prevent military action being taken against any member of the Permanent 5. The spirit of the Veto was to prevent new, wide-scale, global wars of the magnitude that had been seen after World War I and World War II. The general concept, as you yourself say, of the veto was to essentially deadlock the most powerful nations in the world into not being able to take such drastic action against one another. The Cold War shows that this was a rather effective result and one that, in the spirit of the general concept, was a fair and appropriate action for the body to take.

If Arab countries try to bring in a resolution condeming Israel almost every week, then obviously the statistics for the US veto'ing such resolutions will be high.

But since Palestine is your favourite bugbear, you'll only want to look at that.

Wudjab…

**EDITED** Insulting members isn't allowed in English Sabla ~ BrAiKi

Most of the condemnation were approved by the international community and no they are not every week… and the Security Council will not approve any condemnation by any country without the consent of the majority of the rest of the members… that is the step before activating the VETO, the veto is to abort the resolution as its final step…

If you're asking about the general concept of the Veto, then yes, of course it makes sense and is rather fair.

You can argue that the purpose of the Veto within the United Nation's Security Council as being primarily in place to prevent military action being taken against any member of the Permanent 5. The spirit of the Veto was to prevent new, wide-scale, global wars of the magnitude that had been seen after World War I and World War II. The general concept, as you yourself say, of the veto was to essentially deadlock the most powerful nations in the world into not being able to take such drastic action against one another. The Cold War shows that this was a rather effective result and one that, in the spirit of the general concept, was a fair and appropriate action for the body to take.


But America doesn't seem to respect it all. It has gone off and started its own wars which seem to be like reprisals or to further their foreign policy in most cases.

Since the US contributes most to the budget I do think some guidelines need to be there to ensure that a monopoly on "rights" are not continously taken advantaged of. That way, everyone is treated equally however that is an ideal world.

I am always on the bandwagon for government reformation. Why I vote. I have had my ills with the UN for some time. I love my country but my govt needs an overhaul in some of its practices.

I know other country's out there are no angels, far from it. But since we are the superpower we need to lead by example and by example I mean bringing on positive contributions to the world, which I know we do in many many ways with humaniatarian funding however there are still some dark spots in the way the US deals with the UN that need to be reevaluated.

Wudjab…

**EDITED** Insulting members isn't allowed in English Sabla ~ BrAiKi

Most of the condemnation were approved by the international community and no they are not every week… and the Security Council will not approve any condemnation by any country without the consent of the majority of the rest of the members… that is the step before activating the VETO, the veto is to abort the resolution as its final step…

In the 2006-2007 session there were 22 Anti Israel resolutions moved..

Assuming the UN does not sit 365 days a year, it would be fair to derive that there is an anti Israel resolution ALMOST every week.

Interesting to note the usual gang of culprits who move every resolution.

http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.2264593/k.14EE/AntiIsrael_Resolutions_at_61st_GA.htm

And you still haven't answered my question about the VETO, do you think it's fair ?

It may not seem fair to those who don't have veto power. I believe it was an enticement to get the 5 most powerful nations at the time to support the UN. Support which was needed to get the UN off the ground.

I think the fact that the much stronger powers gave other weaker nations a voice and representation in a global forum is very fair.

It certainly does not have to be that way.

I have no reason to believe if the current weaker nations were in fact powerful nations, they would return the favor.

Since the US contributes most to the budget

No, the US once accepted in principle that this was its share of the budget. However, unlike the others on the list, there have been some issues about PAYING!

The reason the US doesn't pay is that they say the UN is corrupt and inefficient. I would have to agree with that. But then again, leaving them without the agreed budget doesn't help much either.

I would be in favour of administrative and structural reform of the UN, including the membership and role of the Security Council.

Not Crapology.. but you need some education on what a figure of speech means.

But no worry, I HAVE reported your post.

Anyway,

In the 2006-2007 session there were 22 Anti Israel resolutions moved..

Assuming the UN does not sit 365 days a year, it would be fair to derive that there is an anti Israel resolution ALMOST every week.

Interesting to note the usual gang of culprits who move every resolution.

http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.2264593/k.14EE/AntiIsrael_Resolutions_at_61st_GA.htm

1.I need education on speech if that is how I talk with everybody… and you are the last one to talk to me about behavior… please!
All your narrow-minded posts in politics and religions are on nothing but pouring your rage and hatred on Arabs and Muslims…needs a proof? I don’t think so!
I always avoid this kind of post/posters on Sabla but sometimes it gets too silly. I feel sorry for myself…

2.Before you post links blindly… look at them very carefully…look at the blue line in the status column…look at how many in favor to how many (No+ abstention)…in case you haven’t goggled that…there are 22 Arab countries and 50 Muslim countries in the UN…those in favor are always 150+, that makes the approval 88%+ ….that was my point! And it is natural a resolution to be sponsored by the OIC, we cannot wait for Burkina Faso or Montenegro to file it!

3.what you brought is just the resolution projects… there are many that made their ways to complete approval except (USA+Israel) check here
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm

Cosme, I think El Rey is focused on the issue of the Security Council, not the other bodies of the UN.

Anyway, obviously the way that the Security Council works is incredibly unfair. It used to even be worse during the Cold War, it wasn't just the US who was vetoing, but also the former Soviet Union, so there would constantly be a deadlock.

I suppose it is unfair.

But the thing is, you are never going to have a system in which the great powers of the world allow themselves to be dictated to by a bunch of little countries that have little responsibility.

The UN actually gives MORE power to the little countries, even on the Security Council, than they would have if there were no UN.

I am not a big fan of the UN. I think people see it in far too grand a way.

But much as I dislike it, I think it does some good being here. If it disappeared, there would have to be some kind of replacement for it.

What people need to understand is that sovereignty in the world belongs to nations, not to supranational organizations. Any nation that signs a treaty has the right to withdraw from it. Arab nations included.

But everyone seems to see some value in belonging.

I think that says something.

There are many branches of UN some r good some r bad...

Like what pointed by Cosme there are many things positive about certain UN branches as like UNESCO and UNHDR while some others r doing harm to humanity esp in political stuff..

UN is a tool in the hands of US government. It can be effective only when US wants it to be effective, otherwise its just a waste of time. Of course, I speak of the political and military aspects of UN. Other humanitarian and social branches are more effective.

In an old thread I said the UN is a morally bankrupt institution. I still think that way.

Membership of the Human Rights Council year 2009 (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/year.htm)

Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Cameroon
Canada
China
Cuba
Djibouti
Germany
Jordan
Malaysia
Mauritius
Mexico
Nigeria (http://www.sonsofapesandpigs.org/2008/05/the-followers-of-mohammad-at-w.html)
Russian Federation
Saudi Arabia (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23742573-23109,00.html)
Senegal
Switzerland
Uruguay

I'd say as few of the worst offenders is on the UN HR council :rolleyes:

Here's good example (http://www.englishsabla.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54612) too of UN cedibility.

Let Asian countries ( like Japan, Korea ,Taiwan, Thailand
& Singapore ) to run the whole UN and
UN will be far more respected . The world will become mroe peaceful and there will be no more Muslim-West conflicts.

Let Asian countries ( like Japan, Korea ,Taiwan, Thailand
& Singapore ) to run the whole UN and
UN will be far more respected . The world will become mroe peaceful and there will be no more Muslim-West conflicts.

And you came up with that logic on what basis?

UN is a tool in the hands of US government. It can be effective only when US wants it to be effective, otherwise its just a waste of time. Of course, I speak of the political and military aspects of UN. Other humanitarian and social branches are more effective.


Agree that it has its bad and good side, and of course mostly controlled by US which most of the time ( if not all the time ) direct UN decision to US benefits ( mostly in the political side ).

Here's one more reason the UN should be scrapped.

And the Pakistani peacekeepers shouldn't be allowed within 100 feet of under aged girls.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7420973.stm

Since the US contributes most to the budget I do think some guidelines need to be there to ensure that a monopoly on "rights" are not continously taken advantaged of. That way, everyone is treated equally however that is an ideal world.
.

Speaking of contributions. Could you please tell us what's the US debts figure to the UN ?

Here's one more reason the UN should be scrapped.

And the Pakistani peacekeepers shouldn't be allowed within 100 feet of under aged girls.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7420973.stm

Yah neither Canadian peacekeepers

http://www.geocities.com/famous_bosniaks/english/general_lewis_mackenzie.html

You don't have a better source than someone's private Geocities home page ? Something like BBC or CNN or Al Jazeera ?

I like MUN. Participated several times both as a delegate and chair. And that's about all what I like in relation to the UN. They ask for a lot, do lots of talking and walking around, wear suits and then give so little. Like I'd give a shitstick about foreign policy if I were one of those diplomats. Can't blame them, good money.

I suggest they change the name to DN. Any guesses ?

You don't have a better source than someone's private Geocities home page ? Something like BBC or CNN or Al Jazeera ?

That source is coming from Serpians themselves. More trustworthy source than CNN or BBC .