Should the UN have more power?

[NuIItley]

Whoever says "yes" to this proposal is either debilitatingly retarded or they're an undercover agent pushing psy-ops. No in-between.

 

[finallyfalling]

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

What are you even talking about

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

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, the UN could have acted. So could France in 1940. Or the USA during the Holodomor. Or the international community in every single genocide since then.
The record isn't just bad luck, it's structural. An organization like the UN, which is built to avoid offending the powerful, will always hesitate when the powerful prefer silence.

They often don't go anywhere because members of the Security Council have veto power and the UN is pretty weak.

That's the key though, isn't it? The moment you give veto power to the most armed states on Earth, you no longer have a humanitarian institution. All you have is a diplomatic theater that requires moral compromise to function. And we're back to realpolitik.
And your own argument proves it:

if nations don't have a stake in a resolution, they will generally vote for the more humanitarian option

In other words, they will only vote for the humanitarian option when it's irrelevant. That ain't ethics, that's moral theater at best.

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.

Excuse me?
I gave the example of me making a private business to arm genocide victims. That would instantly get me labeled as an arms trafficker and shut down by force.
Most efforts that even can stop genocides were either illegal under empires or simply dwarfed by the scale of the utter atrocities committed by states in the 20th century.
But even then, individual resistance, underground railroads, private relief groups, sanctuary movements, they all did things. But I suppose that, because they just didn't bomb cities or installed governments, they are overlooked by the history books.
The point I'm making is that distributed networks did not fail. It is that they have never been given a chance. Licensing, disarmament laws, sanctions, tariffs, and the constant framing that all serious defense is exclusively the matter of states, all of these things block the growth of private initiatives.

it has the potential to

If the UN "has the potential", then why not imagine a world where that potential exists in a system that doesn't depend on coercion, compromise, and vetoes from the world's biggest arms dealers?

 

[regalterry]

The UN is a serious organization.

 

[finallyfalling]

The record isn't just bad luck, it's structural. An organization like the UN, which is built to avoid offending the powerful, will always hesitate when the powerful prefer silence.

Yes, I agree. I'm not a huge fan of the current UN. I believe in a hypothetical UN with a larger mandate and a more democracy, but I understand the obstacles to this.

In other words, they will only vote for the humanitarian option when it's irrelevant. That ain't ethics, that's moral theater at best.

Most nations are small and don't have a stake in most other countries. Bhutan isn't worried about what goes on in Congo, but would prefer Congolese people didn't starve to death. In just about every resolution, the nations without a stake will greatly outnumber those with. Though of course, resolutions regarding say the US would be different. I don't think this flaw outweighs the positives of this system.

Excuse me?
I gave the example of me making a private business to arm genocide victims. That would instantly get me labeled as an arms trafficker and shut down by force.
Most efforts that even can stop genocides were either illegal under empires or simply dwarfed by the scale of the utter atrocities committed by states in the 20th centuries.
But even then, individual resistance, underground railroads, private relief groups, sanctuary movements, they all did things. But I suppose that, because they just didn't bomb cities or installed governments, they are overlooked by the history books.
The point I'm making is that distributed networks did not fail. It is that they have never been given a chance. Licensing, disarmament laws, sanctions, tariffs, and the constant framing that all serious defense is exclusively the matter of states, all of these things block the growth of private initiatives.

I don't think I really understand your definition of "voluntary, distributed, efforts" but what you've mentioned seems like band-aid at best. In many cases, force is the only option. Serbia required an armed force. Rwanda required an armed force. Cambodia required an armed force. A multinational organisation like the UN is the only way of consistently mobilising an armed force for humanitarian missions.

If the UN "has the potential", then why not imagine a world where that potential exists in a system that doesn't depend on coercion, compromise, and vetoes from the world's biggest arms dealers?

Because I don't think what I've proposed is that far-fetched. Though unlikely of course.

 

[oh no its pipkun]

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 chicoms have peacekeepers in africa. Units in mali and south sudan had casualities. by all accounts the chinese soldiers suck, in south sudan they were killed in the crossfire between two rival sudanese factions.

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 firmly believe western colonialism has always offered the natives a better life than other alternatives. sub saharan Africa is the major example but theres also hong kong, korea, india and the philippines. However if the choice is between the US and UN colonialism i choose the US because our military and resources with be the major might like in somalia.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

the chicoms have peacekeepers in africa. Units in mali and south sudan had casualities. by all accounts the chinese soldiers suck, in south sudan they were killed in the crossfire between two rival sudanese factions.

Aren't they just protecting Chinese infrastructure, or is China pretending to care about what happens there?

 

[oh no its pipkun]

Aren't they just protecting Chinese infrastructure, or is China pretending to care about what happens there?

attempted soft power by showing the world china can undertake military excursions just like the US.

 

[greatUncleShitHeel]

No.

And op either glows or is naive.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

The UN has an overwhelming majority of nigger nations that only exist due to western benevolence keeping their people fed, giving them actual power could only end badly.

 

[cigint]

The UN cannot be "given" more authority. It is the global super alliance of the WW2 winners, and the fact that it and others no longer recognize this means that it is already on its deathbed. It will be replaced after WW3 with the "College of Nations" or whatever, which will derive its authority from the fact that its founding members fucked everyone else up and have boots on the ground everywhere.