Should the UN have more power?

[finallyfalling]

*I'm not a globalist, I'm not a US imperialist*
In 1993, the UN began the second phase of its Somali intervention, UNSOM II. Somalia was in the middle of a civil war, ran by warlords, and in need of humanitarian aid. The mission aimed to provide humanitarian aid, stabilise the nation, and establish a democratic government through force. But, the mission fell apart after the Battle of Mogadishu, in which the UN achieved their aims, but political backlash led to the US withdrawing from the mission.

There's an interesting timeline where the US doesn't withdraw from Somalia. I'm not an expert so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how the mission would've failed if the US stayed. Many lives would've been saved, a stable government would've led Somalia, and there probably isn't a mass exodus of Somali refugees. Would it have stayed stable? No, but I'm sure Somalia would be better off today. Also, if not for the failure of UNSOM II, the UN probably intervenes early on in the Rwandan Genocide, where ~800,000 people were killed in 100 days. They didn't intervene because the hangover of their failings in Somalia (the Rwandan Genocide was a year later). The genocide was ended by the RPF who became Rwanda's government. Many perpetrators of the genocide fled to neighbouring Congo, and attacked Rwanda from camps near the border. This led to Rwanda invading Congo and resulted in the First and Second Congo Wars, in which an estimated 5.4 million died.

It's possible that if the US didn't withdraw from Somalia, millions of lives are saved. UNSOM II, before US withdrawal, is an example of the UN acting with a higher mandate. What if the UN encouraged these missions instead of current band-aid missions. Would the world be a better place if the UN acted with more authority? I don't think you guys would like that, but I'd like to know what you think.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

Would the world be a better place if the UN acted with more authority?

No. Any group that puts China and Iran on a human rights council, unironically, has lost any legitimacy or seriousness. It is a corrupt body that believes it is unaccountable for its actions, either to God or the hoi polloi.

The mission aimed to provide humanitarian aid, stabilise the nation, and establish a democratic government through force.

This statement leads to the question nobody likes to ask: why the fuck is it America's business? We had no national security, industrial, or civilian interests. It's a horrible thing what those warlords are doing, but who died and made us the world's policeman?

I'm not an expert so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how the mission would've failed if the US stayed. Many lives would've been saved, a stable government would've led Somalia

Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. I can't say with 100% certainty. However, after a 20 year debacle in the Middle East- two decades of pouring lives and gold into Afghanistan to teach them about buttsex, only for everything to fall apart in a few weeks- I'm leery of these forever wars. It's not our monkeys, and it's not our circus.

UNSOM II, before US withdrawal, is an example of the UN acting with a higher mandate.

If it seems like I'm harping on about the USA instead of the UN, there's a reason. Almost all of the UN's actions are performed by the USA; hell, the USA simply reducing funding is enough to cripple the UN (archive). Besides, China sure as shit isn't sending its troops to die in the jungle for "humanitarian reasons," and they're on the security council. The UN is propped up by American largess, and repeatedly condemns America while simultaneously demanding our blood and treasure to back up their otherwise toothless edicts.

To get to the heart of your point: the UN doesn't have more power because the USA is the "power behind the throne," as it were. Any power they have is because of America's generosity, and any power over America is because the USA willingly ceded it to them. If the UN wishes to increase it's power, they'd need a nation who could match American finances, and the only nation that might be able to (China) has its own agenda.

 

[YoRHa No. 2 Type B]

There's an interesting timeline where the US doesn't withdraw from Somalia. I'm not an expert so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how the mission would've failed if the US stayed. Many lives would've been saved, a stable government would've led Somalia, and there probably isn't a mass exodus of Somali refugees. Would it have stayed stable? No, but I'm sure Somalia would be better off today

Even other niggers think Somalians are subhuman beasts. The problem with Somalia is Somalians, just like how the problem with India is the Jeets.

 

[King Metalia]

Much like Bob Chandler I want to believe the United Nations is doing something important. But given how many countries are at each others throats I'm losing faith everyday.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

They should have the power to choose how they meet God, that's about it.

 

[From The Uncanny Valley]

Short answer: nope.

Long answer: noooooooooooooooooope.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

@finallyfalling You're operating on the dangerous assumption that coordinated violence by bureaucrats in blue helmets can "save" people by imposing political structures from above
But the reality of the things you were describing is just one group of thugs replacing another and calling that "peacekeeping" because they hand out rations along the way

It's possible that if the US didn't withdraw from Somalia, millions of lives are saved.

The central issue is who gave the UN the right to force a government into existence at gunpoint? What gives them the moral authority to "intervene" anywhere, let alone dictate which gang rules? A "humanitarian" empire is still an empire

What if the UN encouraged these missions instead of current band-aid missions. Would the world be a better place if the UN acted with more authority?

If the UN had more power, it would still be backed by the states that fund it and it would still serve the same political agendas. @Sexy Senior Citizen rightly noted that it already props up tyrants, shields itself from accountability, and sucks up American resources to enforce its own edicts. More power to the UN would just mean a more efficient global predator
If you want to stop genocide, don't build a bigger throne, abolish the thrones instead. Take away the power of the monopolies of violence, regardless of whether they're openly carrying a warlord's sash or a UN badge. You can't and won't fix criminality by institutionalizing it

 

[Super-Chevy454]

Much like Bob Chandler I want to believe the United Nations is doing something important. But given how many countries are at each others throats I'm losing faith everyday.

And add to the list, corruption, the UN is gangrened by corruption.

No. Any group that puts China and Iran on a human rights council, unironically, has lost any legitimacy or seriousness. It is a corrupt body that believes it is unaccountable for its actions, either to God or the hoi polloi.

That was the moment when the UN jumped the shark and nuked the fridge.

 

[Ted's of Beverly Hills]

The UN is ontologically evil and the only good they do is incidental to their literally diabolical agenda.

 

[Baguette Child]

Yes let's give more power to the shady international organization staffed by unelected tyrants. It's totally worth all our countries ceding up their sovereignty and political representation just to save some fucking shitholes in Africa.

 

[finallyfalling]

@finallyfalling You're operating on the dangerous assumption that coordinated violence by bureaucrats in blue helmets can "save" people by imposing political structures from above

Yes, violence can "save" people. How would you stop the Rwandan Genocide without violence?

The central issue is who gave the UN the right to force a government into existence at gunpoint? What gives them the moral authority to "intervene" anywhere, let alone dictate which gang rules? A "humanitarian" empire is still an empire

I think when a country is massacring its civilians, others have the moral authority to step in. Also, I don't believe "rights" exist on the international stage, there's only power. It's good if those with power use it to protect and help those in need, though I understand how naive that sounds.

More power to the UN would just mean a more efficient global predator
If you want to stop genocide, don't build a bigger throne, abolish the thrones instead. Take away the power of the monopolies of violence, regardless of whether they're openly carrying a warlord's sash or a UN badge. You can't and won't fix criminality by institutionalizing it

I don't get what you mean by this. You're saying we should get rid of the UN entirely?

No. Any group that puts China and Iran on a human rights council, unironically, has lost any legitimacy or seriousness. It is a corrupt body that believes it is unaccountable for its actions, either to God or the hoi polloi.

I don't believe that if something is flawed, even deeply, it's automatically bad. But yea that is a major stain on the UN.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Yes, violence can "save" people. How would you stop the Rwandan Genocide without violence?

You're right that stopping a massacre may require force. But you ought to distinguish between defensive force (to stop murderers) and coercive force (to rule over the survivors). A neighborhood militia shooting back at armed niggers is not the same thing as the UN parachuting in, toppling the power structure, and installing a regime. When "saving lives" becomes a license to rule others indefinitely, that's where moral rot sits in, that's how every empire starts. With a justification so noble it would be immoral to oppose it.

I think when a country is massacring its civilians, others have the moral authority to step in.

I agree. Others. People, groups, militias, aid networks, donors, even private defense networks. But when you bundle all of those "others" into a single coercive monopoly, give it a flag and immunity, and declare it morally infallible, then you have recreated the very thing you were ostensibly trying to stop. If anyone has moral authority, surely it's not bureaucrats whose salaries depend on never solving the problem.

I don't believe "rights" exist on the international stage, there's only power.

Bleak, but honest. But if there's only power, then you can't say it's "good" to use it for humanitarian reasons. If there is only power, there is no ethics, and the best you can do with the word "good" is just use it as a replacement for "effective" and you're back at realpolitik and cynical mass manipulation.

You're saying we should get rid of the UN entirely?

Yes.
The UN is a cartel of states claiming legitimacy by mutual recognition. Giving the UN more authority does not fix violence in the world, it only centralizes that violence. You don't stop warlords by making a super warlord.
If you're serious about ending genocide, then you ought to build voluntary coalitions, arm victims, support secession, and create parallel institutions. But handing a monopoly of judgment and firepower to an unaccountable club of governments is not the way.

 

[finallyfalling]

You're right that stopping a massacre may require force. But you ought to distinguish between defensive force (to stop murderers) and coercive force (to rule over the survivors). A neighborhood militia shooting back at armed niggers is not the same thing as the UN parachuting in, toppling the power structure, and installing a regime.

I do agree. Humanitarian missions should be humanitarian missions, not to spread influence or establish allies. But I don't think that's realistic.

I agree. Others. People, groups, militias, aid networks, donors, even private defense networks.

I can't think of a single example of those entities you listed stopping genocide, with the exception of the people (though this usually comes at significant humanitarian cost). In many cases, the UN is the only entity with the means to stop these atrocities.

Bleak, but honest. But if there's only power, then you can't say it's "good" to use it for humanitarian reasons. If there is only power, there is no ethics, and the best you can do with the word "good" is just use it as a replacement for "effective" and you're back at realpolitik and cynical mass manipulation.

I can't disagree with that.

If you're serious about ending genocide, then you ought to build voluntary coalitions, arm victims, support secession, and create parallel institutions. But handing a monopoly of judgment and firepower to an unaccountable club of governments is not the way.

Like I said before, I just don't think those solutions you listed would be effective enough.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

In many cases, the UN is the only entity with the means to stop these atrocities.

Surely that is a circular premise, no? Only the UN "has the means", because only a cartel of states, funded by involuntary taxation and backed by military monopolies, can stop genocide. Of course no voluntary networks have done it because you've ruled them out of existence in advance.
But what if that monopoly is the reason that the alternatives never scale? What if all the creativity, capital, and organizational genius that could have gone into decentralized defense and aid has been strangled by regulation, prohibition, and foreign policy gamesmanship? After all, if I went out there to try and privately arm the victims of a genocide, I would be labeled an arms trafficker and shut down.

Humanitarian missions should be humanitarian missions, not to spread influence or establish allies. But I don't think that's realistic.

And that's the problem. The moment you let an institution become realistic by being unprincipled, it just becomes another power center, like every single state in human history. You can't build justice out of a structure where domination, and not defense, is rewarded by incentives.
I'm not gonna deny effectiveness matters, but my point is that ethics matter more, because ethics shapes what kinds of effectiveness are even possible. If we concede that only monopolies can save us, then all we're doing is pray that the next king is a good one. And history has shown that this gamble is rigged.
The real challenge is not to pick the lesser evil, it's to break the cycle. And the start of that must include refusing to legitimize global monopolies like the UN, no matter how good their stated intentions sound at first

 

[Lovely Kin]

Given the UN's history of fucking up it's missions and making things worse. No. It's one of the last things I would trust them in.

 

[finallyfalling]

Surely that is a circular premise, no? Only the UN "has the means", because only a cartel of states, funded by involuntary taxation and backed by military monopolies, can stop genocide. Of course no voluntary networks have done it because you've ruled them out of existence in advance.
But what if that monopoly is the reason that the alternatives never scale? What if all the creativity, capital, and organizational genius that could have gone into decentralized defense and aid has been strangled by regulation, prohibition, and foreign policy gamesmanship?

Alternatives existed before the UN, rarely did they ever stop genocides. The Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust only ended because of regime changes, who knows how many more would've died if not for them. Throughout history, genocides would simply run their course with no one intervening. Honestly, they still do because the UN is toothless.

I'm not gonna deny effectiveness matters, but my point is that ethics matter more, because ethics shapes what kinds of effectiveness are even possible. If we concede that only monopolies can save us, then all we're doing is pray that the next king is a good one. And history has shown that this gamble is rigged.

I like to think that humans are generally good. Nations are made of humans, and generally nations don't like people being massacred. If the UN were more democratic, I don't think ethics would be an issue. Very optimistic though. I don't unequivocally support the UN, I just think it's the most effective means we have of solving humanitarian crises.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Honestly, they still do because the UN is toothless.

Exactly, the Rwandan Genocide happened with the UN standing by. So if even the most "legitimate" global power structure can't act when it matters, maybe the structure itself is the problem.

The Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust only ended because of regime changes, who knows how many more would've died if not for them.

True. But that is not a proof of moral authority. It is a proof of violence often only being stopped by other violence, regardless of who is holding the flag. I'm definitely not a pacifist who opposes all violence. I'm firmly in support of defensive, restitutive, and punitive violence.

I like to think that humans are generally good. Nations are made of humans

Sure. But collectives such as nations do not have ethics. Individuals have ethics. Once people act through a bureaucracy, the first thing that exits the stage is incentives and accountability. You will never get compassion from an institution that is designed to manage power. Those institutions reward obedience and punish dissent.

If the UN were more democratic

Sure, but let's be honest. Democracy did not stop the USA from toppling peaceful regimes. Democracy did not stop China from mass surveillance and internment camps. Democracy did not stop the EU from propping up dictatorships in Africa in exchange for stability. If anything, democracy is just a convenient tool that lets people outsource their conscience.
The better question might be this: If truly voluntary, distributed efforts were allowed to exist and grow, unmolested by state interference, could they have done better?

 

[msd]

if they get more power, literally nothing will happen, because they do jack shit in general.

Theyll maybe give a more firm finger wag, but the UN is, and will always be, useless.

 

[finallyfalling]

Exactly, the Rwandan Genocide happened with the UN standing by. So if even the most "legitimate" global power structure can't act when it matters, maybe the structure itself is the problem.

It could act though, it has the potential to. It's plausible that if US helicopters aren't shot down during the Battle of Mogadishu, they do act in Rwanda. I don't think it's that far-fetched, but maybe I'm engaging hypotheticals too much.

Sure. But collectives such as nations do not have ethics. Individuals have ethics. Once people act through a bureaucracy, the first thing that exits the stage is incentives and accountability. You will never get compassion from an institution that is designed to manage power. Those institutions reward obedience and punish dissent.

I disagree. UN resolutions generally vote to provide aid, and are what I would deem ethical. They often don't go anywhere because members of the Security Council have veto power and the UN is pretty weak. I think if nations don't have a stake in a resolution, they will generally vote for the more humanitarian option. If for humanity, then for the optics.

If truly voluntary, distributed efforts were allowed to exist and grow, unmolested by state interference, could they have done better?

These "voluntary, distributed efforts" were allowed to exist before the UN and they never did anything, which leads me to believe they wouldn't do any better than the current UN, let alone a hypothetical stronger UN.

 

[regalterry]

if they get more power, literally nothing will happen, because they do jack shit in general.

They put in a lot of effort in raping children on an industrial scale and criticizing civilized country.