Hi everyone
Post ur comments for the above question. I have posted this question because the security council of UN is not working properly. It has become selfish department of UN. The council has not done anything for the peace of the world.
Keep smilling 🙂
Aariz Memon
I think that... The UN don't have any power.. I mean , they give there opinion, but, have nothing to forcing you to do for peace... I think so : )
Well, I couldn't say yes or not. I think UN is a mediating organization in order to try to keep peace of world but they can't make peace just with will (and self interests? I don't know) Each government has to do something by its own if wants peace truly.
'Course, it is! How many permanent members does it have? Just Five (all of them developed, except for China, but I don't think it alone can represent for all the developing nations!), for the whole world! Oh come on, even if one of the five countries does not want something good to happen for most other countries due to selfish reasons, it just can't! It's ridiculous! The veto power must be removed-we can have the usual majority rule. It is high time that other deserving countries get the permanent membership, because it doesn't look like the present UN security council is doing something against the so many wars going on (In Iran, Tibet, Sri Lanka, etc.), does it?
I suggest you guys to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council Gives you lot of info!
yep...I think, the idea of a world organisation for peace, was a good thing... But, the UN must be different.
Should not see the money' interests. Just see egality, and peace. They should be stronger, to stop the things what can hurt peace
'Course, it is! How many permanent members does it have? Just Five (all of them developed, except for China, but I don't think it alone can represent for all the developing nations!), for the whole world! Oh come on, even if one of the five countries does not want something good to happen for most other countries due to selfish reasons, it just can't! It's ridiculous! The veto power must be removed-we can have the usual majority rule. It is high time that other deserving countries get the permanent membership, because it doesn't look like the present UN security council is doing something against the so many wars going on (In Iran, Tibet, Sri Lanka, etc.), does it?THANK YOU!! i'm glad you agree. i really don't understand why people still feel that it is the best way to achieve ANYTHING. it literally gives me a headache to think about it. haha
I suggest you guys to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council Gives you lot of info!
So...We all agree that the present UN is inadequate to maintain peace in the world. The reason is that it isn't powerful. So how do we give it power? I remember reading that to give UN the power that The League of Nations lacked, headquarters of UN was placed in New York in US, the world's Superpower-to be sure that US was always involved in UN, since The League failed cos the Big Powers failed it. Do you think that UN needs to be democratised? But some poeple think that it would dilute UN's powers. Would it? I'm not sure!
Take a look at this:
"Some of the members of the Uniting For Consensus group are:
Argentina, Colombia, Mexico - opposed to a bid for Brazil
Italy, Netherlands, Spain - opposed to a bid for Germany
People's Republic of China, South Korea - opposed to a bid for Japan
Pakistan - opposed to a bid for India"
Love thy neighbour??? 🙂
You are right... That could be work if it was different..(I hope 🙂 )
We have to believe that a world full of peace can be possible.
We have to be optimistics to do somehting... Our governement don't really care about peace or war. Don't really care about poverty and killling.
They just se the economics problem. they don't care of the UN because it could be help people without earning no money...
We have to cHange every mentality to move the things.. We have to accept that we are all human, and that seeing a human dying is horrible.. We have to see that we all leave on the same earth. That it's not important if we are french or american or japanese. Then, there won't be any problem..
We have to be "utopist" (i don't know if it's the right word, but i think you got the idea)
Megadeth - United Abominations -
Within striking distance from Ground Zero sits a smoldering international cauldron, the United "Abominations" as it were. Born to prevent wars, it froze in the face of disaster and stood silent while terrorization to hostage of the world
In a mire of hypocrisy, the U.N. ignores sex crimes by its "blue helmets", and enables terrorism; so in the end it's failed and the U.N. is where our
so-called friends get to stab us in the back and we pay 22% of their tab to host our
enemies here at home.
Ambassadors from countries enjoy otherwise known as a catastrophe, enjoy Diplomatic immunity living in Manhattan, while their children are turned into prostitutes It's a complete and utter disgrace, a blot on the face of humanity, and they get away with it.
(This part is about the victims)
Poverty in their kitchens
Held hostage by oil-for-food
Yet their own plates are full off the fat of their lands
There's no blood on their hands,
---------------------------
(This part is about the U.N)
They promised to tell the truth
Without leaving a fingerprint,
They will lose the U.N. one way or another
The victim, I fear will be us, sisters and brothers
The U.N. is right; you can't be any more "un"
Than you are right now, the U.N. is undone
Another mushroom cloud, another smoking gun
The threat is real, the Locust King has come
Don't tell me the truth; I don't like what they've done
It's payback time at the United Abominations
A grave and gathering danger
The decision to attack
Based on secret intelligence it'll take years
I fear to undo the failings in Iraq, Iran, and Korea
You may bury the bodies
But you can't bury the crimes only
Fools stand up and really lay down their arms
No, not me, not when Death lasts forever!
'Course, it is! How many permanent members does it have? Just Five (all of them developed, except for China, but I don't think it alone can represent for all the developing nations!), for the whole world! Oh come on, even if one of the five countries does not want something good to happen for most other countries due to selfish reasons, it just can't! It's ridiculous! The veto power must be removed-we can have the usual majority rule. It is high time that other deserving countries get the permanent membership, because it doesn't look like the present UN security council is doing something against the so many wars going on (In Iran, Tibet, Sri Lanka, etc.), does it?I agree. Taiwan should get permanent membership, but the proposal doesn't even get put on the agenda due to Chinese pressure. Last year Ban Kee Moon flat out rejected our application without putting it through all the legal measures by which proposals are considered.
I suggest you guys to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council Gives you lot of info!
UN is not democratic. All the countires cannot vote and only 5 countries have veto power? Why?Do the countries like Uk ,france and USA beleive in democracy? If so then why don't they allow democracy in the UN. You should practise what yopu teach other wise dont pretend. UN is uselss because it is not democratic. It is meant for powerful countries to rule and do as they please. Iraq is one good example. No one listened to Un and Iraq was atacked.Palestine, same story. So why do we have UN?
I believe that the UN may serve roles in certain circumstances. Solutions to a very limited number of minor conflicts, humanitarian aid, and the establishment of international norms does account for something. However, I agree with the apparent consensus that we all appear to be reaching. The fact that the Security Council has its five permanent members that possess veto power severely inhibits, if not neuters, the capacity of the body to operate within its intended function. This renders that institution not useless but extremely inefficient, tangled in bureaucracy, and ineffective.
The problem is that major world powers with veto power have different interests and all too often they conflict. Russia, China, and the United States seem to be the most obvious culprits, though the UK and France have contributed their share. Political, security, and economic interests clash greatly and polarization among these countries is high. There are few situations in which a major power is not involved in some indirect way, even in minor scuffles between two tiny countries. This means that at least one of the five members will not be willing to compromise their interests by permitting action.
The Cold War showed the largest number of vetoes by the Soviet Union. Russian/American power structure rivalry is still alive and well. Though the situation is not exactly the same, I suspect a declining US monopoly in hegemony, resurgent Russia, and the rise of China is bringing forth a system that is actually more unstable and will make the UN even less of an effective actor.
In the idea, ONU is not too bad, this is a good idea, but today this organisation is becoming a powerful instrument...
Europeans country use this organisation to command the world and America use this organisation to comand decisions favorable to him... Some acts of ONU are good, often it's about save patrimony questions or help programs, but in the reality, organisation is uneffective because country who have power use ONU in their interest... 5 permanent members, and when all the states votes, a lot of little states sell their vote at the "highest bidder "... ONU become a democracy parody! Every members who can to do something to help others in ONU are doing nothing! they doing just acts who can be favourables at them.
Whenever UN has an opinion, the big nations are setting things by themselves. Like, for example, in Copenhague, the strong nations overrided the process and impose their opinion. It's like if we were getting back to the pre-WWI era, with strong empire who makes the decisions for all the planet. Today, in an era with so much important debates, such as environment and globalisation, such a rulership just can't be good.
