Originally Posted by croatian batman
After the Soviet Union fell what exactly have they done? Next to nothing to be frank they have little power and no authority to do anything. You don't have look far away from our area to see how inept they are. Oil for Food, Rwanda, the fact that 1/4 of all their resolutions are about Israel. Its a organization with little power and little sway and its been true for sometime
The UN is fast becoming like the League of Nation's. The League of Nations was criticized for being corrupt, lacking goals, not having the ability to prevent and stop wars. Whats the difference between the League of Nations and the United Nations right now?
And the question was can the UN marshall the world? When i think of marshalling i think of a policing and police have the threat of force and have authority thats why they're successful at their job. Neither of which the UN has. All they can do is put a sanction against you (which the Oil for food showed to be a disaster) Or a Third World soldier with strict orders not to use his gun! They have no independent army. Nobody fears the UN or cares if their on their bad side. Ask Iraq, Isreal, Iran, China, Milosevic etc. Nobody cares what they think at all. For discussing things they can be fine but when it comes to protecting the world? They have zero capability to do that as they have shown many times over.
Listen, the UN is only as good as the support its individual members supply it (doesn't the US owe the UN tons of money?). And the US has been largely ignoring the UN since the Cold War ended whenever it couldn't get what it wanted from it or knew that that was unlikely. Might I remind you that the UN sanctioned the war in Korea (the USSR was absent from the Sec. Council at the time), that the idea of UN peacekeepers (Lester B. Pearson) was what stopped the Israel/France/UK-Egypt Suez war, that the UN sanctioned Operation Desert Storm (was the US complaining about it then? I doubt it, they were probably full of praise for it at the time), and so on. I'm not saying the UN is perfect; it's failures, from UNMIK and the joke that is the Hague to Oil for Food and God knows what other screwup god knows where in the world, are many. But the UN Security Council is important, because that's what keeps - in theory - powers from taking unilateral action.
Rwanda is a bad example - it's not really the UN's fault per se; nobody
gave a rat's ass about Rwanda - the UN is only the sum of its member nations, and if they don't care and don't want to do anything about it no UN bureacrat or peacekeeper can do much to change that. I mean where was the mighty US to send thousands of troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda? What happened there was worse than anything in the Balkans for example, just by looking at sheer numbers. There's a reason why the UN keeps bitching about Israel; mainly because Israel keeps violoating UN resolutions and doing things which are, plainly, illegal.
Once again, the UN is not some abstract entity, it's a bunch of countries working together. And if those countries don't want to cooperate on something because they have divergent interests, it's those countries' fault, not the UN's. So of course the UN will not approve an invasion of Iraq if France and Russia oppose it. The liberation of Kuwait was not opposed, so the UN approved it. Simple.
The UN is effective at being the "world's policeman" in cases where a) the member nations care and b) where the member nations agree.
What you're talking about it granting some power to right to police the world - whatever that might mean - without the explicit consent of all those countries which this "policing" concerns. That sounds a lot like good ole imperialism to me. The United States, the UK, France, Russia, China, Germany or Tanzania have absolutely no right to be a "policeman" in some region of the world where they're not welcome from the perspective of the legal governments of that region. If the UN can't be the world's policeman by consesus, than no one country - or group of countries - should be. That's not being the world's policeman, more like being the world's racketeer.