United Nations

[RedAnarchist]

What does everyone think of the United Nations? Do you regard it as a capitalist's club, or do you see it as the harbinger of reason and diplomacy in a time of war and global instability?

[h&s]

IMO Its really a bit of both really, but mainly its a capitalist's club. Kofi Anan condemning the war on Iraq was obviously a good thing, but how many other illegal wars have they failed to condemn? It is a place where the wills of individual governments get an airing on the world stage, but, as we all know, those governments involved are all capitalist, so the demands of the UN are based on the preservation of power in the hands of the borgeois.
Of course if the whole world was socialist / communist, things would be different, but then I would see no need for the UN to exist (unless maybe to fight regimes that have hijacked socialism).

[Guest1]

Another Capitalist attempt to inject some cooperation into their fights for survival, sort of "rules amongst gentlemen", torn apart because the international bourgeoisies cannot cooperate for prolonged periods of time.

Just as with the League of Nations before it, it reaches a point where the nature of the market, and Capitalism reverts the ruling class to the naked competition that the material conditions demand from the bourgeoisie.

Just look at the WTO now, and the state of global Capitalist cooperation and you will understand that while it may be in their best interests to cooperate in order to suppress the working class, their nature always tears such efforts assunder. Look at US beligerance and the international bourgeoisie's response to it.

The world requires cooperative institutions, and once again Capitalism attempts to address necessities and fails spectacularly. Only truly cooperative economics could result in truly cooperative, and long lasting, institutions (in the case of what I'm advocating, institutions as in federated collectives).

Our advantage is the workers' role naturally lends itself to international unity, despite the ups and downs of it, workers are capable of building and maintaining it. Capitalists tend towards the breakdown of their unity, and it will be their downfall.

[patriotic]

I think that the UN is leaded by the American goverment, at least for the arabic problems, also i think that it must do more and more about the arabic countries like Palestine and Iraq she's not active at all in this two countries.

[redstar2000]

UN = U.S. imperialism in costume.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[truthaddict11]

a useless organization with no power whatsoever, a lackey of the United States.

[Yazman]

The United Nations is fucking ridiculous, and in no way representative of democracy - ESPECIALLY when certain countries have veto powers.

democracy + veto powers = not democracy

[Commie Rat]

but then without the veto powers all the larger richer states or the ones that are in the UN can gang up and exploit workers where ever they want Fucked if we do fucked if we don't

[DaCuBaN]

without the veto powers all the larger richer states or the ones that are in the UN can gang up and exploit workers where ever they want

Excuse me? It's all the "larger richer states" that have the veto power! They can, and do, fuck over everyone and anyone! The Security Council, the effective seat of UN power, has it's five founding members:


Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council)

The Council has five so-called "permanent" members. They were originally the five victorious powers of World War II:

* Republic of China
* France
* Soviet Union
* United Kingdom
* United States

The Republic of China was, in effect, expelled in 1971 and replaced with the People's Republic of China. After the USSR broke up and then formally dissolved itself in 1991, the Russian Federation was treated as its successor.

Thus, the current permanent members are:

* People's Republic of China
* France
* Russian Federation
* United Kingdom
* United States


Of course, we all know which nation has used it's veto more than any other...

[leftist resistance]

The UN is a creation of the US,was it not?

All this while,the UN was backing the US in almost every issue.When the US went to N Korea,UN troops went along.

Recently,the UN has criticised some actions undertaken by the US but was there really actions taken?NO.

I see UN as a tool for the US to gain global support.Submit to US policy or you're not part of UN

[cormacobear]

Ther United Nations was created by several countries, however a Canadian is usaully given the Credit.

The U.N has the potential to be a powerfull force for global change. However four key points must first change.

1. There can be no vetoes
2. By majority vote the U.N. must be given power to impose economic sanctions, and give peace Keppers more aggressive rules of engagement.
3. The U.N. must be given the power to charge and try War Crimes violators in absentia, and be give the means to force the handover of such criminals.
4. 'The right to own property and to not have it arbitrarely taken away' , Must be removed from the U.N. Charter, and it's declaration of human rights.

Under these conditions it could be the tool for global peace, and human rights. Untill then it's a place for nations to voice their oppinions, but has no power to effect change.

[h&s]

2. By majority vote the U.N. must be given power to impose economic sanctions
WTF?!?
Imposing sanctions?!?
Do you not realise what sanctions do?
Sanctions are supposed to hurt a countrys economy, which they do, but what else do they affect?
They affect the people of that country. Imposing sanctions on a country never affects the rich - they just find new ways to steal wealth. It is always the poor that lose out.


Untill then it's a place for nations to voice their oppinions, but has no power to effect change.
Its not even that at the moment: its a place for the borgeoise of nations to express their opinions.

[bolshevik butcher]

The UN is a bit of a puppy to imperialism, but it's better than nothing and at least Kofi Annan isn't afraid to stand up to the U$

[cormacobear]

Yes it's often the countries poor who suffer from sanctions, if there were no Veto the Cuban and even the Iraqi embargo would have been struck down years ago.
It's rarely an effective tool and usually leads to further suffering of the empoverished and oppressed.

But I feel a true tightening of the embargo on Iran would force either radical reforms, or in a country already on the verge of revolution it could be the impetus for the people to seize power away from the theocrats.

In this case it's not the tool I take offense to it's how it's being used.

And his Name is Kofi.

[existential1]

The UN is most definately a tool of the borgeouis and their own agenda. However, it should be obvious from the intensity of recent news coverage blowing up the recent Oil For Food scandal, that the UN is more than just a percieved threat to the Bush administration. And as far as veto power goes, anytime a resolution regarding human rights is brought up, there are two nations who will always veto: the U.S and Israel. The UN was created after WW2 for the purpose of preventing the exact same objectives of war and destruction that it turns a blind eye on today. I assume it is fairly obvious to anyone posting on these boards that all positions of power in a hierarchical structure are only used for abuse and strong arming others to accept their own agenda. Based on these basic assumptions we could percieve it likely that Kofi has participated in less than ethical practices during his UN tenure, but why doesn't the media report on the unethical and inhumane actions of the US and Israeli governments and their use of the UN as a tool to carry out their destructive and oppressive agendas. Also, every nation on the list of permanent UN members has a serious record of human rights abuses and flagrant violation of international laws. Why don't the smaller, more respectable nations of the world ( such as Cuba, Venezuela, etc. ) form their own organization with which to combat these oligarchical elitists?

[KrazyRabidSheep]

The idea of an international orginization is nice, but the execution is horrible.

The largest flaw is the security council.
U.S., U.K., France, U.S.S.R. (now Russia), and China have veto power (ahem. . .notice they're the main WWII allies, and U.N. was created as a result of WWII). The idea of this is bad enough, because it implies that these countries are somehow "better" or "more responsible" then any others. If any 5 countries deserve veto power, it's China, India, Brazil, Pakistan, and Indonesia, because I'm fairly sure they're the largest 5, so they represent more of the global population.

The second problem I have with the U.N. is they have no power to enforce their decisions. Remember before Iraq, when the weapons inspectors said there were no WMDs during their regular inspections since 1993? They weren't even allowed enough time to check the country the latest time because U.S. knew they wouldn't find any.

If the U.S. agrees with a U.N. decree, they enforce it. Now without the U.S.S.R. to balance it, though, when the U.S. disagrees with a decision, America simply ignores it, like they ignored the weapons inspectors.

The U.N. is dominated by the strongest countries, and when the little guys actualy manage a small victory, the strong countries can just pretend it didn't happen. After all what are they going to do? U.N. santions? (Let me pull out my VETO!)

[Guerrilla22]

The thing about the UN is it is an orginization created by states for the benefit of states. The UN does some good things and has some good programs, but it is ultimately controlled by elitist. The UN has done nothing to protect the rights of indigenous peoples throughout the world and has stood by idely as genocides happened in Rwanda and in the Sudan.

[Rasta Sapian]

I'll tell yall one thing, that is that the U N did not support America's invasion on IRAQ, however this only proves that the U N has no real international authority or influence over the American Capitalistic Pro War Agenda.

can you say suck it *****?

[Commie Rat]

love the picture for more like that but mostly not politcal go to
Some Thing Awful (http://www.somethingawful.com)

[commiecrusader]

The UN is a powerless shell, a Cold War relic, created to threaten the USSR, but irrelevant since the end of the Cold War. The fact that it was ignored over Iraq just demonstrates its lack of power. It has been dead for a long time. Just like the League of Nations, it was another CappieClub that has now been rendered useless by the advancement of time, and the realisation of others that it is nothing more than a talking shop for the world's most capitalist countries.

[refuse_resist]

The U.N. is just another organization that was created to allow the bourgeois to do whatever they want without being questioned. If you've noticed what has gone on as a result of it being created, over the years the U.S. and the rest of its imperialist allies have been able to attack and invade countries without being stopped. The U.N. always gives them approval or does nothing whenever they do something that's considered illegal.

[duk]

UN is an unfair referee in the world . its a group where politicien can sit 2gether and drink some coffee :P