[Mallee Boy]

Is the Climate Change debate and the debacle that is Copenhagen the last stand for the United Nations?

Should the UN go the way of the League of Nations? has it passed its use by date?

The more I look at the UN the more I question its value and contribution to mankind....what has it actually achieved in the last 10 years...ok....20 years? that is widely respected as a universal achievement?

The more I look at the climate debate I can not help but wonder if this is not the UN's "Little Big Horn". If the UN can convince the world to go with it and committ to trillions of dollars of "compensation" does it not by default then guarantee its existence into the forseeable future?

And we would give these trillions of dollars over to an un-elected forum to do with as it pleases.

No Thankyou.

(I do not intend to offend or inflame...but these questions need to be asked)

[Wombat]

I agree it hasn't done much to inspire in recent years and there's a propensity to elect mind-numbingly dull Secretaries General. But, mate, at least it's a forum. If the world agreed to shut it down we'd probably spend the savings on guns and bombs rather than feeding the poor or saving the environment. (I'm old and entirely too cynical).

[lithos]

The more I look at the UN the more I question its value and contribution to mankind....what has it actually achieved in the last 10 years...ok....20 years? that is widely respected as a universal achievement?

East Timor?

(I do not intend to offend or inflame...but these questions need to be asked)

HAHA-*snort* Oh, you're being serious.

[RawheaD]

You do understand that agencies such as IMF, WHO, UNICEF and UNESCO are part of the UN, right?

You do understand that agencies such as IMF, WHO, UNICEF and UNESCO are part of the UN, right?

So? More socialist run UN crap. Taking money from those who actually do something and giving it to those too lazy to do anything.

If the UN stays in existence I think Canada should host it for the next 40 years. Let them soak somebody else for a while.

[Parallax]

Has the U.N. had it's day?

This is a trick question, right. Something like "have you stopped beating your wife?". To answer "no" would imply that it's existence in the future will be of benefit to the world. To answer "yes" would imply that it had served some useful purpose in the past. There is no right answer here.

[newmikey]

"Should the UN go the way of the League of Nations? has it passed its use by date?"

Most certainly: YES!

The UN has become the playground of dictatorships and other nasties to play with as they will. They now outnumber the democratic "Western World" 4 to 1 and can overthrow any decision.

Like the Human Rights issue, chaired by Libya and Myanmar, amongst others over the past few years. Disgusting.

[Ratmagiclady]

The UN is a favorite conspiracy-theory/thing to denigrate on the Right, as it's perceived to be somehow in the way of some nationalist/corporate agendas: the idea it's at once tyrranical and 'ineffective' is basically just a function of "We don't like this idea."

The Bush administration even appointed a man hostile to the existence of the organization to represent us there for years: in fact, one of the things too often keeping the UN from 'working' in conspicuous cases *is in fact 'the United States,* just as it can often be other Security Council or other big nations that prevent the big, well-publicized stuff from being resolved.

Far from representing the 'One World Government' some like to mumble darkly about, this is actually somewhat by design. The big and powerful nations are more likely to not participate at all, if they feel their sovereignty is being impinged upon, and then you don't really have much of a council.

In practice, it's the kind of thing where the UN is more likely to be noticed for what 'fails,' than for what goes right every day. What goes right is taken for granted, and a lot of the *successes* are really things we don't see, cause they represent conflicts and injustices that *don't* happen: both because nations are talking to each other, and in fact, just cause the U.N. is there.

The compensation for developing nations is to get everyone invested in preserving the ecosystem: one of the biggest looming problems is in fact the prospect of huge numbers of people trying to 'develop' into something like a Western lifestyle, and resorting to non-sustainable and environmentally-devastating means to do it.

They've been breathing *our* exhaust and advertising for however many decades, it's certainly not fair to say, "Don't cut down the rainforest or pollute, but we won't help you do things in a greener fashion... Just. Don't develop or something." That'll never work.

The kind of lifestyle we live in the West, (Leaving aside the just plain excess and waste) ...All this was *expensive.* Not just for us, but to the world and the planet. And everyone's future.

Much of what we enjoy and have built now...came on the backs of colonialism and post-colonialist corporate exploitation, all the proxy Cold War warfare all over people's countries, all the social turmoil of people trying to convert people to Big Religion and destroy traditional cultures and ways of life... All very expensive to the *world,* ...and many of the nations now 'developing' or remaining largely-agrarian are the ones already most severely affected by environmental devastation.

Very expensive. And we in the developed world weren't the ones who paid most dearly in the first place.

Now let's see what we've bought:

We have amazing know-how, high-tech, communication, capacity for organization, and, frankly, raw physical power. Heck, even the motive force of all these vehicles we mostly drive in circles with could be moving mountains every day if we so chose.

For our part, the tech has to mature and we have to organize our lives into some form that's less wasteful while we have the chance, so we can keep the important stuff.

For the 'developing world's' part, with some help, they don't *have* to go through the dirty and environmentally-expensive process like we did, only to wonder how to unbuild what their own wealthy interests made 'dirty.' Cause what happens in *one* part of the biosphere and world economy *does* affect us all.

Calling the poor 'lazy and undeserving' while trying to sell them unsustainable modes of living to 'get out of their hard lives' doesn't constitute a solution, it constitutes a redoubling of the *problems.*

It's not just 'compensation,' ...it's investment.

The UN is a favorite conspiracy-theory/thing to denigrate on the Right, as it's perceived to be somehow in the way of some nationalist/corporate agendas: the idea it's at once tyrranical and 'ineffective' is basically just a function of "We don't like this idea."

The Bush administration even appointed a man hostile to the existence of the organization to represent us there for years: in fact, one of the things too often keeping the UN from 'working' in conspicuous cases *is in fact 'the United States,* just as it can often be other Security Council or other big nations that prevent the big, well-publicized stuff from being resolved.

Far from representing the 'One World Government' some like to mumble darkly about, this is actually somewhat by design. The big and powerful nations are more likely to not participate at all, if they feel their sovereignty is being impinged upon, and then you don't really have much of a council.

In practice, it's the kind of thing where the UN is more likely to be noticed for what 'fails,' than for what goes right every day. What goes right is taken for granted, and a lot of the *successes* are really things we don't see, cause they represent conflicts and injustices that *don't* happen: both because nations are talking to each other, and in fact, just cause the U.N. is there.

The compensation for developing nations is to get everyone invested in preserving the ecosystem: one of the biggest looming problems is in fact the prospect of huge numbers of people trying to 'develop' into something like a Western lifestyle, and resorting to non-sustainable and environmentally-devastating means to do it.

They've been breathing *our* exhaust and advertising for however many decades, it's certainly not fair to say, "Don't cut down the rainforest or pollute, but we won't help you do things in a greener fashion... Just. Don't develop or something." That'll never work.

The kind of lifestyle we live in the West, (Leaving aside the just plain excess and waste) ...All this was *expensive.* Not just for us, but to the world and the planet. And everyone's future.

Much of what we enjoy and have built now...came on the backs of colonialism and post-colonialist corporate exploitation, all the proxy Cold War warfare all over people's countries, all the social turmoil of people trying to convert people to Big Religion and destroy traditional cultures and ways of life... All very expensive to the *world,* ...and many of the nations now 'developing' or remaining largely-agrarian are the ones already most severely affected by environmental devastation.

Very expensive. And we in the developed world weren't the ones who paid most dearly in the first place.

Now let's see what we've bought:

We have amazing know-how, high-tech, communication, capacity for organization, and, frankly, raw physical power. Heck, even the motive force of all these vehicles we mostly drive in circles with could be moving mountains every day if we so chose.

For our part, the tech has to mature and we have to organize our lives into some form that's less wasteful while we have the chance, so we can keep the important stuff.

For the 'developing world's' part, with some help, they don't *have* to go through the dirty and environmentally-expensive process like we did, only to wonder how to unbuild what their own wealthy interests made 'dirty.' Cause what happens in *one* part of the biosphere and world economy *does* affect us all.

Calling the poor 'lazy and undeserving' while trying to sell them unsustainable modes of living to 'get out of their hard lives' doesn't constitute a solution, it constitutes a redoubling of the *problems.*

It's not just 'compensation,' ...it's investment.

So I see this post from RML. Before I read it I just took a wild guess that it would have some Bush bashing, some Right bashing some corporate bashing, and some more of how we should give money to the "poor". Then I read it. Sure enough, as usual I was Right.

[Ratmagiclady]

So I see this post from RML. Before I read it I just took a wild guess that it would have some Bush bashing, some Right bashing some corporate bashing, and some more of how we should give money to the "poor". Then I read it. Sure enough, as usual I was Right.

It's not as if I wrote all that expecting a careful reading and a considered response from *you,* Graphics.

[deadwolfbones]

Interesting! You disagree with something the UN's doing/promoting and therefore it's "had its day."

In that case the Republican Party has probably had its day, too. And the New Orleans Saints. And Apple.

[Parallax]

So I see this post from RML. Before I read it I just took a wild guess that it would have some Bush bashing, some Right bashing some corporate bashing, and some more of how we should give money to the "poor". Then I read it. Sure enough, as usual I was Right.

DAMN! You must be psychic!

[Ratmagiclady]

DAMN! You must be psychic!

You're not exactly a ball of surprises, yourself, either, Parallax.

[Peter Zack]

So I see this post from RML. Before I read it I just took a wild guess that it would have some Bush bashing, some Right bashing some corporate bashing, and some more of how we should give money to the "poor". Then I read it. Sure enough, as usual I was Right.

yes you are "Right" that's the issue.

Oh and I'd say peacekeeping is a big issue that needs more troops and support. i for one benefited when Turkey invaded Cyprus. I was there and the UN called a cease fire to get all the non-residents out and try to calm things down. We need a lot more of this. Having been Bush-wacked in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need peace keeping more than ever.

Plus Unesco, etc which are all good organizations. But the organization needs an overhaul. Who knows how that can happen.

yes you are "Right" that's the issue.

Oh and I'd say peacekeeping is a big issue that needs more troops and support. i for one benefited when Turkey invaded Cyprus. I was there and the UN called a cease fire to get all the non-residents out and try to calm things down. We need a lot more of this. Having been Bush-wacked in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need peace keeping more than ever.

Plus Unesco, etc which are all good organizations. But the organization needs an overhaul. Who knows how that can happen.

Not the despots running it that's for sure.

Peacekeeping? Like countries that they have put sanctions on have they ever followed through?

Peter, I say if you're all so fired up about the UN why don't you East Canadians tote the note for a spell. Let them run roughshod over your city as they do NY.