What would the world be like if the UN could enforce its resolutions?

[Idaho]

It can enforce it's resolutions, if they suit the US.

[Fragony]

It can enforce it's resolutions, if they suit the US.

Awwwwww just a little patience untill the yellow dragon lifts off to cast big fat fireballs against anyone who knows how to spell economy correctly.

[Ronin]

if the UN could enforce it´s resolutions AND there were no bull**** veto powers....I´d say the world would be a whole lot better off.

[InsaneApache]

if the UN could enforce it´s resolutions AND there were no bull**** veto powers....I´d say the world would be a whole lot better off.

I disagree. The problem with the UN is that most of it's constituent members are not democracies. You can't have dictatorships lording it over democracies. IMO another organisation should be promoted, one that consists of democracies only. Maybe then we might have something that would be workable. Pressure put on the non-democracies to convert, so to speak, may, in some future time be able to actually do something that really matters.

[Ronin]

I disagree. The problem with the UN is that most of it's constituent members are not democracies. You can't have dictatorships lording it over democracies. IMO another organisation should be promoted, one that consists of democracies only. Maybe then we might have something that would be workable. Pressure put on the non-democracies to convert, so to speak, may, in some future time be able to actually do something that really matters.

If you look at the UN you´ll see that dictatorships are in the minority....so there is no way they would be able to impose their will over others in the UN.....appointments to special groups like human rights and such would have to take into the account the behavior of the country of course.

In my view what drags the UN more than anything else is the Veto power some countries have....as long as some countries can do anything they want because they have a veto power or because they are buddies with a veto power country the place will never work correctly.

[Geoffrey S]

Chaotic. Such power to the UN as a whole would be to the detriment of such nations as the US and China, who would never allow such a situation.

Anyway, UN is all countries, not a seperate entity as is often implied. If there were consensus resolutions could be enforced. Problem is getting nations to agree to any one resolution, and even then if the UN will actually enforce it or not. More powerful countries can easily dominate the UN, and as I said they would never allow such a situation where they must do what the UN as a whole wants them to do.

Good to see you back, Gawain.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Gawain is, as always, good for a laugh.


A UN that could enforce its resolutions would be in a bit of a muddle, since the Security Council and the General Assembly often vote quite differently and the veto powers would still have undue influence/ability to be intransigent. Still, a few things would be handled better -- cease fire blue hat zones and the like.

Were the veto removed and the UN given power to enforce its resolutions, we would see virtually all nations brought over, at least in practice, to social-democratic governments within a generation. The attempt would be made to re-cast most in a model approximating those in Scandanavia.

I don't think that would work, but it would be tried.

[Ice]

If you look at the UN you´ll see that dictatorships are in the minority....so there is no way they would be able to impose their will over others in the UN.....appointments to special groups like human rights and such would have to take into the account the behavior of the country of course.

So 2/5 of the permenant UN security council doesn't consist of dictatorships?

[Don Corleone]

Come on Ice. Everyone knows China is a freer democracy then the United States of Oppression. Just ask any European lefty, they'll tell ya. And poor misunderstood Vladmir Putin. He's just trying to get the mob in line. He'll turn power back over once he does, he even said so.

[Ronin]

So 2/5 of the permenant UN security council doesn't consist of dictatorships?

if you think that 2/5 are a majority then I suggest you go back to the math books.....and anyway...the correct value would be 1/5.....I´m not seeing were you are getting the 2nd dictatorship from.

[Kralizec]

I disagree. The problem with the UN is that most of it's constituent members are not democracies. You can't have dictatorships lording it over democracies. IMO another organisation should be promoted, one that consists of democracies only. Maybe then we might have something that would be workable. Pressure put on the non-democracies to convert, so to speak, may, in some future time be able to actually do something that really matters.

The UN is obviously a product of its time, wich required a forum of sorts to deal with international disputes peacefully (among other goals)
Simply not recognising authoritarian countries would have been counterproductive, the Soviet Union being so powerful at the time. Even now it's simply a reality that we have to deal with dictatures diplomacticly, since replacing all with democracies is not a viable option. We can see that now with the Iraqi insurgency- it's perhaps to premature to tell with certainty that the whole democratization has failed, but doing that with every dictature on the planet is obviously an impossibility.

I'll say this once: I don't really like the UN myself. I like the idealist vision behind it, but the reality is sadly lacking.

[Louis VI the Fat]

if the UN could enforce it´s resolutions AND there were no bull**** veto powers....I´d say the world would be a whole lot better off.

There's only a veto power system in the security council, not in any of the other UN institutions.

There is nothing wrong with a veto system in itself. The reasoning behind it is very logical - there's no point in a resolution if a major power refuses to abide by it. A preventive veto system merely acknowledges reality.

[Don Corleone]

It can enforce it's resolutions, if they suit the US.

As far as I know, it suited the US just fine to enforce 1559 but it wasn't. The UN had a dozen resolutions against Saddam Hussein but none of them were enforced.