The UFP Versus the U.N.

[Pauln6]

But that's exactly the problem. The UN shares the ideological shortcomings of the member nations, and refuses to grow beyond them. It justifies its existence and influence by appealing to a moral code it refuses to uphold universally, because its members don't understand how to do so. The UN is indirectly responsible for the suffering and death of many thousands of my people. It never apologized, never admitted its crimes, never made any steps to change and grow. In fact, it continues to ignore or deny any and all attempts to change things so it doesn't happen again. How can I then have faith in it?

But why would a new organization be any different than the present UN? It would still be the same member states, with the same politics, the same reluctance to commit and act through an international organization. It's the member states that need to be willing to change. I'm sure the people at the UN would favor a change. After all, they can't be happy when they are given too much to do, but nowhere near enough means to do it. But for that to happen enough of the disparate members with their conflicting interests and politics would have to agree to a change, and that's a very difficult thing to acomplish.

Yes the UN is a flawed institution but what is the UN? It is the sum of its parts and that INCLUDES the USA. It certainly isn't value for money but it is neither evil nor completely ineffectual. Just mixed up and largely ineffectual.

What makes me laugh is that Europe and has such a lax attitude towards corruption among its politicians. In the UK we've had a political scandal with MP's paying relatives to do full-time jobs while away at university and 'flipping' their main residence with their political domicile to claim for renovations to one of their two homes. Italian politicians just claim for their mistress's homes and put truck loads of hookers down as a legitimate expense. They also appoint glamour models with no previous experience to senior governmental positions. Still, only one or two African governments lack major corruption. It's practically a pre-requisite for any job - reminds me of the Ferengi.

 

[Sci]

<SNIP>

Well, the first thing I would say to that is, that was a policy decision made by the people in charge at the U.N. at the time, and it's not necessarily one that is inherent to the entire United Nations system.

The second thing I think is important to bear in mind is that, while you bring up a very good point in arguing that the U.N. should not have played into the idea that young men have an inherent duty to fight for their nation, the fact remains that if the alternative was that no nation would allow any refugees out of the war zone, the alternative would have gotten many more people killed. You're completely right when you note that endorsing the idea that young men have an inherent duty to fight wars for elites was bad -- but I really think it's important to pause for a second and ask one's self what you would do if you were in the U.N.'s situation. I know that if I faced the choice between endorsing an idea that I know is wrong but which would save many thousands, and not endorsing that idea and getting many thousands more killed, I would probably have made the same decision the U.N. did. (Though I probably would have tried to find language that obfuscates the specific idea that young men have an inherent duty to fight.) Is that right? Wrong? I don't know. I do know that my own conscience would not allow me to sleep at night knowing that thousands of people died who might have lived had I made another decision.

So I think that that's the sort of thing where maybe the U.N. deserves a little bit of forgiveness. I'm not saying you're wrong in objecting to their decision, and you're rightfully noting that that decision plays into the existing nationalist prejudices of the warring factions. But... It apparently also saved more lives than the alternative. That ain't nothin'.

But ultimately... Frankly, Deranged Nasat, I think that your objection there does ultimately boil down to the U.N.'s status as an intergovernmental organization rather than a state in its own right. As long as the U.N. is an IGO, it will remain a tool of its member states, and will be unable to act truly independently in the service of its larger founding principles. It's the cost of maintaining the sovereignty of its Member States. If the U.N. was a truly global government, that wouldn't be an issue, because it would, inherently, be an organization out to fight nationalism out of its need for global unity. But so long as it is an IGO, it will always fall prey to the prejudices of the Member States, who are, after all, the ones who really control the United Nations.

That doesn't mean that a global U.N. government would itself respect human rights, of course. Many states throughout history have violated human rights without stoking nationalist passions or engaging in aggression. But the specific problem you're citing there, Deranged Nasat, does boil down to being inevitably the product of the U.N.'s status as an organization that can only do what its Member States allow it to do.

ETA:

The UN are OK, mostly for humanitarian missions, but are incredibly poor politically and militarily, and something better should be created. UN is too vulnerable to vetoes of Russians especially when it comes to issues, it should be completely re organized.

That, too, boils down to being the inevitable result of the U.N.'s status as an IGO that lacks its own sovereignty. It will always be politically depending on the wills of its Member States, and it will always be poor militarily so long as it lacks its own military and relies on reluctant Member States to staff its peacekeeping missions.

(The exception being the command system the U.N. established when its Member States fought the Korean War under U.N. auspices... But that was a result of the U.S. and its allies being determined to make the U.N. coordination system work.)

 

[Deranged Nasat]

But ultimately... Frankly, Deranged Nasat, I think that your objection there does ultimately boil down to the U.N.'s status as an intergovernmental organization rather than a state in its own right. As long as the U.N. is an IGO, it will remain a tool of its member states, and will be unable to act truly independently in the service of its larger founding principles. It's the cost of maintaining the sovereignty of its Member States. If the U.N. was a truly global government, that wouldn't be an issue, because it would, inherently, be an organization out to fight nationalism out of its need for global unity.

That doesn't mean that a global U.N. government would itself respect human rights, of course. Many states throughout history have violated human rights without stoking nationalist passions or engaging in aggression. But the specific problem you're citing there, Deranged Nasat, does boil down to being inevitably the product of the U.N.'s status as an organization that can only do what its Member States allow it to do.

I certainly see what you're saying. I think maybe my problem is that I have these very strong objections to things as they are, but am unsure of how to offer any workable solution. I just wish the UN would make more of an effort to analyze and deconstruct its member nations' ideologies and offer them new ways in which it could serve their interests, rather than simply going along with them. I'm sure there are ways in which the UN could attempt to influence the member states for the better without violating the fact that the UN is simply a tool of the members. I suppose that's the problem, though- I appear to be caught- as you seem to be suggesting - between wanting the UN to have more ability to actively change the member nations yet without detracting from their sovereignty or claiming any actual power. I admit I may well be grasping for a compromise that can't actually work.

 

[Sci]

But ultimately... Frankly, Deranged Nasat, I think that your objection there does ultimately boil down to the U.N.'s status as an intergovernmental organization rather than a state in its own right. As long as the U.N. is an IGO, it will remain a tool of its member states, and will be unable to act truly independently in the service of its larger founding principles. It's the cost of maintaining the sovereignty of its Member States. If the U.N. was a truly global government, that wouldn't be an issue, because it would, inherently, be an organization out to fight nationalism out of its need for global unity.

That doesn't mean that a global U.N. government would itself respect human rights, of course. Many states throughout history have violated human rights without stoking nationalist passions or engaging in aggression. But the specific problem you're citing there, Deranged Nasat, does boil down to being inevitably the product of the U.N.'s status as an organization that can only do what its Member States allow it to do.

I certainly see what you're saying. I think maybe my problem is that I have these very strong objections to things as they are, but am unsure of how to offer any workable solution. I just wish the UN would make more of an effort to analyze and deconstruct its member nations' ideologies and offer them new ways in which it could serve their interests, rather than simply going along with them. I'm sure there are ways in which the UN could attempt to influence the member states for the better without violating the fact that the UN is simply a tool of the members. I suppose that's the problem, though- I appear to be caught- as you seem to be suggesting - between wanting the UN to have more ability to actively change the member nations yet without detracting from their sovereignty or claiming any actual power. I admit I may well be grasping for a compromise that can't actually work.

*shrugs* The U.N. does do what you suggest it should... to a point. Its specific specialized agencies will often critique Member State ideologies and practices -- the International Criminal Court, for instance, or the Human Rights Council. It also tends to acquiesce to the demands of its Member States, particularly the rich and powerful ones, as in the Security Council. And it also tends to acquiesce to the will of the majority of its Member States, even if the richer and more powerful ones object, in the General Assembly.

The U.N. is a large and somewhat schizophrenic organization in that regard, really. The specialized agencies, especially the field agencies like the WHO or UNICEF, do a lot of on-the-ground good but can't often affect policy changes. The General Assembly can set general goals and policies but relies on majority rule and can't always accomplish its goals if the larger and richer states oppose. And the Security Council is the most powerful organ that can actually DO something, but tends to do what the larger and richer states want, but is paralyzed by in-fighting between the most powerful states and by their ideologies.

And caught in the middle is the Secretary-General, who has to try to find a way to make the whole thing work and not just fall apart.

But, yeah, I see where you're coming from, too. Basically, everyone -- myself included -- wants to have their cake and eat it, too. We want the U.N. to be more effective... without taking away power from the Member States.

Really, the only way to do that is for the Member States themselves to have some pretty major changes in political culture.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

It is not simply "an American thing". I am not American, nor am I religious for what it matters. Nor am I nationalistic or patriotic. I have always been promoting diversity, peace, tolerance and a sense of global unity. The UN, however, does not in fact offer these, whatever it likes to claim. I dislike the UN to the point of despising it (by my standards, that is very, very strong distaste). It is a hypocritical organization that claims what influence it has on the basis of an apparent commitment to peace and a "universal" declaration of rights, yet it does not in practice apply them universally, and the manner in which it violates its own supposed moral standards fuels conflict. The UN has the same ideological shortcomings as all of the member nations, but refuses to grow and change because it's so certain that it is the voice of morality incarnate. I for one have not forgotten how they betrayed my people during events such as the Balkan conflicts, without remorse, and how they have still to this day offered no apology, no acknowledgement or altered their policies and ideologies to prevent such things happening again.

This is very well-phrased. On paper, the UN is one thing. In practice, it's a whole other.

This is why I'd love to kick them out of NYC and let them take up residence in one of the totalitarian regimes they love to give so much airtime to. At least then they'd be consistent.

But not before the diplomats and bureaucreeps have to pay back ALL the traffic tickets they owe the city of New York.

 

[EmperorTiberius]

I'll never understand the whole UN-hating thing. Maybe it's an American thing?

It is not simply "an American thing". I am not American, nor am I religious for what it matters. Nor am I nationalistic or patriotic. I have always been promoting diversity, peace, tolerance and a sense of global unity. The UN, however, does not in fact offer these, whatever it likes to claim. I dislike the UN to the point of despising it (by my standards, that is very, very strong distaste). It is a hypocritical organization that claims what influence it has on the basis of an apparent commitment to peace and a "universal" declaration of rights, yet it does not in practice apply them universally, and the manner in which it violates its own supposed moral standards fuels conflict. The UN has the same ideological shortcomings as all of the member nations, but refuses to grow and change because it's so certain that it is the voice of morality incarnate. I for one have not forgotten how they betrayed my people during events such as the Balkan conflicts, without remorse, and how they have still to this day offered no apology, no acknowledgement or altered their policies and ideologies to prevent such things happening again.

The Federation, on the other hand, is wonderful. If only the UFP were real and the UN wasn't....

Who are your people from the Balkans Nasat? I agree that UN could have and should have prevented the conflict there long before they did. They were good for humanitarian reasons, but the troops there were ineffective and laughable.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

In response to Sci's post, I think that IF the world does unite into one government, it's more likely to occur naturally--and with far less resistance--through a series of alliances like NATO. But the thing is, you do have several blocs with fundamental ideological opposition to each other, and I do not see any way that is going to be resolved. So all you're left with in the UN currently is each bloc using the forum to sabotage each other.

And apologies for further cynicism, but I think we would only unite with a threat or something that COULD be a threat...and even then, I am not sure about it because again, you'd have factions attempting to exploit the situation to their advantage. Sadly, perhaps the only thing that could do it would be first contact with sentient aliens. And why? Because we would have a new "opposition" so that we no longer saw each other as so different in comparison to what all was out there.

Do I *personally* think that way? No. As a person I have no problem forging individual relationships with those from other countries and cultures, and find it fascinating. My trouble is with the inherent corruption that occurs in governments and government-like structures. That is what I do not trust and do not believe we are likely to "evolve" past.

And again--just to avoid any confusion anyone may have...being Christian does NOT mean you think the UN is the Antichrist. As I have stated above, my problem is corruption and hypocrisy, which I think is a legitimate complaint.

 

[neozeks]

This is why I'd love to kick them out of NYC and let them take up residence in one of the totalitarian regimes they love to give so much airtime to. At least then they'd be consistent.

Well, working with totalitarian regimes is a price the UN has to pay for it's universality, it's all-encompassing status. The US is certainly also guilty of working with totalitarians. Maybe if the powerful western states engaged more with the UN, the totalitarians would have less maneuvering space.

But not before the diplomats and bureaucreeps have to pay back ALL the traffic tickets they owe the city of New York.

Ok, but then the US should pay it's debt to the UN (arrears, membership fees, what do they call it; I think it was over 1 billion$ a few years ago).

 

[Mysterion]

UN - Not worth the Manhattan real-estate it occupies.

UFP - See Eddington's speech in the DSN episode For the Uniform.

 

[iguana_tonante]

UN is too vulnerable to vetoes of Russians especially when it comes to issues, it should be completely re organized.

I'm sure the Russians say the same about the US veto power.

 

[NIUPonyBoy]

I support neither, but enjoy Star Trek greatly.

Why in God's name could anyone support that evil corrupt mess called the UN? It's main function is to punish the US and allow tin-pot dictators to be seen as equals with legitimate governments.

 

[Sci]

I support neither, but enjoy Star Trek greatly.

Why in God's name could anyone support that evil corrupt mess called the UN? It's main function is to punish the US and allow tin-pot dictators to be seen as equals with legitimate governments.

You're oversimplifying the U.N. again. You're talking about various resolutions of the General Assembly when you talk about "punishing the U.S.," but make no mention of the U.S. veto over Security Council resolutions, nor of American participation in the U.N.'s various humanitarian agencies.

As for the second, the U.S. itself designed the U.N. to allow dictators to be seen as equally legitimate on the U.N. It's the cost of the U.N.'s universality and neutrality - for it to be a neutral forum for the peaceful resolution of disputes between nations, it has to accept all nations, even those run by tyrants. We designed it that way.

 

[NIUPonyBoy]

You're confusing the issue of the UN by attempting to use "big" words to justify their pointlessness.

Since when is infringing on a nations sovereignty a good thing? The UN doesn't use armies and fleets like the nations of old to take from other nations. It uses those resolutions to take from the US and give to the rest of the world. It will pass sweeping mandates and legislation and the weaklings in congress will allow it or adopt it. No foreign organization has any right to have anything to do with OUR government. The veto power you speak is shared by the permanent members of the security council, so I fail to see your point?

Who honestly sees the UN as neutral? And there is difference between peaceful and weak. The UN has no idea as to the difference.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Yeah, the UN is out to punish the US. Fair criticism is one thing, and we have seen a lot of reasonable debate on this thread. This is not.

 

[Sci]

You're confusing the issue of the UN by attempting to use "big" words to justify their pointlessness.

No, I'm suggesting that the problems with the U.N. are the result of deliberate choices the United States and its allies made when they created the U.N.

Since when is infringing on a nations sovereignty a good thing?

I didn't say it was. I said that the cost of protecting the sovereignty of U.N. Member States is producing a neutral IGO that has to accept illiberal, non-democratic states as equals with liberal democracies and that can accomplish only what its Member States allow it to accomplish. It's a trade-off. I did not say that the benefits of creating a planetary state out of the U.N. would outweigh the costs. (At least, not today. I think the day might come when that is true, but not any time soon.)

The UN doesn't use armies and fleets like the nations of old to take from other nations. It uses those resolutions to take from the US and give to the rest of the world.

As I noted above, the only body in the U.N. that has the legal authority to compel U.N. Member States to treat its decisions as law is the Security Council, on which the U.S. has veto power. As I further noted, the U.N. Security Council has no actual enforcement power for its supposed legal authority over Member States, and every U.N. Member States has the right to unilaterally leave the U.N.

Simply put, the U.N. has no actual ability to "take from the U.S. and give to the rest of the world" -- as demonstrated by the fact that the U.S. is billions of dollars behind in assessed contributions to the U.N. yet the U.N. has no ability to compel the U.S. to pay. The U.N. gets paid purely at the pleasure of its Member States.

The veto power you speak is shared by the permanent members of the security council, so I fail to see your point?

The point is that the Security Council can't do anything the U.S. doesn't want it to do. The cost of that is that it also can't do anything the U.K., French Republic, People's Republic of China, or Russian Federation don't want it to do. In other words, its biggest sin is that not it is a threat to anyone's sovereignty, but that it is often ineffective because there is no consensus on what to do by the permanent members.

 

[Joshua Howard]

Firstly, cheers to Sci and Deranged Nasat, for contributing fascinating (and balanced) opinion and commentary to this thread. Secondly, cheers to everybody else.

Hearing folks suggest that the U.N. is forcing sovereign states - such as the U.S. - to relinquish or compromise their rights reminds me of another common argument unrelated to the U.N. which nevertheless involves fear of globalism.

When Wal-Mart stores come to new areas, often residents complain about the company in hopes of driving it away. They do this out of desire to preserve small businesses which, due to Wal-Mart's size advantage, would not be able to compete with the prices that a supercenter could offer.

Nevertheless, once the Wal-Mart store arrives, those same people often choose to save money by shopping there. Thusly in the end, it is not Wal-Mart which puts the small stores out of business as much as consumers who abandon them in an effort to save money. Simply put, once it is there and people stop feeling like it is a threat or fearing change, the base for dissent swiftly vanishes.

Using the above as an allegory, it seems only fitting that something be said for the fact that member states themselves - again, such as the U.S. - are becoming more open to globalism. The fact that the United States keeps an open negotiating table or abandons a more traditional militarized stance doesn't necessarily mean - by default - that it is the result of manipulation.

It is easier to hate a neutral "peace broker" like the U.N. than it is to entertain the possibility that from within one's own country the beginning of a transition away from conquest-mindedness is taking place. "The Undiscovered Country" comes to mind.

There was a time when round-earthers were considered a threat to the order of society because most folks believed that the world was flat. The idea that it was not threatened religion and politics of the day; it was so revolutionary that many felt it too dangerous to even think about. Like the U.N., Columbus didn't effect a whole lot in his lifetime; but he did start something that was very effective, and threatening for some. He proved that there was another option available, and made people who wanted change aware of it.

 

[skep155]

Good for humanitarian issues, but if there are too many tyrants in the world then it will become a tyrannical system. Take for example fairly recently when a group of Islamic states tried to force through a resolution which would curtail free speech by making it an offense to insult peoples cherished religious beliefs. You might scoff but it got past the preliminary stage and onto a vote.


Edit: Having actually done my research i've learned that such a non-binding resolution was in fact passed by the UN human rights council after it was proposed by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic countries. How long before they attempt to make it binding?

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE52P60220090326

A United Nations forum on Thursday passed a resolution condemning "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation, despite wide concerns that it could be used to justify curbs on free speech in Muslim countries.

 

[Sci]

Good for humanitarian issues, but if there are too many tyrants in the world then it will become a tyrannical system. Take for example fairly recently when a group of Islamic states tried to force through a resolution which would curtail free speech by making it an offense to insult peoples cherished religious beliefs. You might scoff but it got past the preliminary stage and onto a vote.


Edit: Having actually done my research i've learned that such a non-binding resolution was in fact passed by the UN human rights council after it was proposed by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic countries. How long before they attempt to make it binding?

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE52P60220090326

A United Nations forum on Thursday passed a resolution condemning "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation, despite wide concerns that it could be used to justify curbs on free speech in Muslim countries.

They can't make it binding. They are incapable of making it binding. Because, as I and others have said before, the only organ of the U.N. that can make legally binding resolutions is the Security Council, and the U.S., U.K., and France have veto powers over everything the Security Council does.

Further, even if the U.S., U.K., or France permitted such a resolution to pass, the Security Council lacks actual enforcement ability. And further, as I noted, every U.N. Member can leave the U.N. whenever it wants.

The U.N. is not a legislature. Calm down.

Now, do I agree that that resolution should not have gotten as far as it did? Yes. But that's, again, a product of creating a forum for the peaceful resolution of international disputes -- you've got to accept everyone as equals, even when they're despots, and even when they're small nations the size of a municipality in the larger nations. Otherwise, you don't actually have a forum for the resolution of disputes, you just have another biased alliance that has no credibility with anyone. The U.N. is flawed, as that resolution demonstrates -- but it's hardly a threat to anyone's free speech.

 

[Who_Trek]

Umm... Why is it, exactly, that the UFP flag is so similar to the UN's? There seemed to be little lack of creativity on ST, so why a copy of the UN flag? Why wasn't something new created especially for the show?

 

[Sci]

Umm... Why is it, exactly, that the UFP flag is so similar to the UN's? There seemed to be little lack of creativity on ST, so why a copy of the UN flag? Why wasn't something new created especially for the show?

Presumably because they wanted to allude to the sense of mutual peace and cooperation and unity that the United Nations is supposed (note: supposed) to stand for.