The UFP Versus the U.N.

[Joshua Howard]

It is no subtlety that the flag of the United Federation of Planets is essentially a modified version of the flag of the United Nations. As a matter of fact, at casual glance, the Federation itself looks much like space ruled by the U.N..

The visual and allegorical connection of aforementioned two organizations is no doubt recognized on one level or another by Star Trek fandom, but I imagine that the jury remains out on whether it is generally appreciated, despised, or ignored.

Via poll and of course your valued comments, I think it would be most fascinating to discover how each of you feel about the U.N., in context with both Star Trek and real life.

- - - - - ...Meanwhile, in a galaxy far, far away... - - - - -

Personally, I have long maintained the position that as good as the Federation might be in Star Trek, I despise the United Nations. In very recent times, however, my attitude toward the U.N. has shifted from being very negative, to neutral, to cautiously positive.

I was raised under fundamentalist Christian and dogmatically Republican conditions. As a child, I believed that the day the world was controlled by one government, its leader would be the Antichrist; I was taught to hold a firm belief that there was nothing more evil than national leaders coming together and talking to each other about peace. (Think with me, Left Behind series...)

My views of God and Country extended into patriotic territory as well; I was taught that Democrats were both morally and politically degenerate, and that there was nothing more important than the United States maintaining its position of global dominance.

To some degree, Star Trek itself played a role in changing my political mindset. When I turned 18, I broke church ties, became involved in the workplace, and very shortly after, started watching Star Trek. It was the first step in a personal awakening; realizing that faith cannot replace logic, and that the world is in fact much larger than my isolated childhood environment made me believe.

All of this backstory lends to the fact that the U.N. - which I long believed to be one of the world's self-evident evils - has been subject, as I said earlier in brief, to my serious review of late.

Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that I spent most of my (thankfully still short) life hating an organization simply because I was taught to, and because I chose not to deeply question my reasoning for doing so.

That is more or less the story of how I got from thinking like a 50's American to being a Globalist of sorts, and alot of text to say that - at this point - I endorse the U.N. and believe that (in spite of its often ineffectiveness) it may be an essential tool in the continued progress of human social evolution.

It is easy to appreciate the ideals of tolerance, diversity, and peace; but sometimes when they come knocking at the door you are asked to actually lay down your weapon, shake the hand of an untouchable, or go somewhere that you wouldn't normally go, it becomes much more difficult to live up to that dream.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

My problem with the UN IRL is that it is corrupt. It has no real principles; simply averages out to the lowest common denominator of nations. I am also Christian, and I do not believe there's any connection to the Antichrist (we simply cannot know or predict ANY details of the end times until they're actually happening--so I see no point to obsessing on it). And I think corruption is a perfectly legitimate reason to despise an organization, unless it cleans up. The idea was a good one, but not really very possible in practice given that there are no checks and balances against that sort of thing...not to mention that I do not think we should have to submit to an outside organization to determine our laws. This is legitimate political disagreement, and I do not think it is irrational to have disagreements on such grounds. Please do not confuse your religious disillusionment with legitimate disagreement...I would suggest you look at whatever logic and reasons you have for your opinion--either way you end up going, and evaluate on that basis.

But when it comes to the Federation, though...the UN seems like a precedent, but also the European Union. It seems like the member planets actually forgo their sovereignty when they become members. This is another reason I am not too sure about the UFP. I would be more comfortable if it were a mere alliance like NATO, however.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

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

 

[Deranged Nasat]

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....

 

[StarryEyed]

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

You gotta crawl before you can walk.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

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

You gotta crawl before you can walk.

Your point is well made, but I fear a federation like the UFP couldn't truly be born from an international organization as corrupt, hypocritical and reluctant to self-examine as the UN. I'll be the first to cheer when a Terran global government is born from international alliances, but I don't think the UN is a good step. I personally believe the UN should be disbanded. Let us try again. We can learn from the UN's mistakes and make an effort to reproduce the experiment. Don't get me wrong, I believe something along the lines of the UN is essential and positive, but the UN as it exists is not good enough.

 

[Mach5]

I don't see how UFP is anything like the UN. There are similarities between the UFP and the EU, but UN... No way. I can't imagine the Trill councilman calling his Corridanite counterpart the devil during the council session, if you know what I mean.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I don't see how UFP is anything like the UN. There are similarities between the UFP and the EU, but UN... No way. I can't imagine the Trill councilman calling his Corridanite counterpart the devil during the council session, if you know what I mean.

True- well, one (UFP) is a sovereign state and the other (UN) just an alliance.

 

[iguana_tonante]

You gotta crawl before you can walk.

That's my feeling as well. For all its shortcomings (and it has many, as Nasat pointed out very accurately), it offers a talking ground and a stage for international debate that is much needed in the world today. Bi- and multi-lateral conferences are well and good, but the UN is much broader in scope: everybody is entitled to have a seat and be heard, even people we despise (case in point, Qaddafi just last week). There are elements of corruption? Yes. There are nations that abuse and betray their position in the UN? Sure. But I prefer to deal with that (and try to make it work better) than go back to the time when nations just talked with armies and guns on the borders. It's the worst pub in town, but it's the only bar in town.

As for single world government, I don't think it could arise from the UN, as that is outside of its scope: it's a debate ground, not a legislative assembly. If a United Earth will arise (forgetting about End Times foolishness), it will be from a different organization, maybe an economic alliance of the biggest players on the field, namely the US, China and the European Union.

 

[Sci]

I wrote a fairly long post about two years ago on the parallels between the Federation and United Nations vs. between the Federation and United States here.

I think a lot of the criticisms of the U.N. are valid -- perhaps the most valid one being that, for better or for worse, the U.N. is primarily always going to be biased towards the rich Member States compared to the poorer states (excepting when the large numbers of poorer states work together in the General Assembly to take advantage of their outnumbering the richer states).

Having said that, I also think that people don't give the United Nations as much credit as it deserves. The United Nations administers numerous small IGOs that do a lot of good and save millions of lives each year -- from the World Health Organization, to the United Nations Children's Fund to the World Food Programme to the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees.

My attitude towards the U.N. is that it is a flawed institution, but one which can be reformed and used for good. For better or for worse, the thing to remember about the U.N. is that when it describes itself as a tool of its Member States, it's being accurate -- the United Nations is what we choose to make it. If the United States and the European Union Member States approach the U.N. as an organization that they commit to changing and to using as their primary foreign policy apparatus, the primary tool by which they will wage international relations, I think that we might well find that the United Nations will become quite a bit more effective in the international arena, and possibly less hypocritical and corrupt.

And ultimately, we do need the U.N. -- or something to fulfill its role as an "honest broker," an international forum for all of the states of the world. Because the world is just too interconnected to survive without it anymore, and it's only going to get more decentralized from here. The days of unipolarity or bipolarity in the international arena are finished; the United States is no longer a hyperpower, and numerous other states are gaining in superpower status. The United Nations represents every country's best hope for managing the growing multipolar world order.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

My attitude towards the U.N. is that it is a flawed institution, but one which can be reformed and used for good. For better or for worse, the thing to remember about the U.N. is that when it describes itself as a tool of its Member States, it's being accurate -- the United Nations is what we choose to make it.

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?

And ultimately, we do need the U.N. -- or something to fulfill its role as an "honest broker," an international forum for all of the states of the world. Because the world is just too interconnected to survive without it anymore, and it's only going to get more decentralized from here. The days of unipolarity or bipolarity in the international arena are finished; the United States is no longer a hyperpower, and numerous other states are gaining in superpower status. The United Nations represents every country's best hope for managing the growing multipolar world order.

I agree entirely, but I'm definitely for the "Something to fulfill its role" option, rather than the "UN" option. If the UN were willing or able to change, it would have done so by now. Why do you think that after decades of non-action and denial it's suddenly going to grow a sense of responsibility and admit its mistakes, or take steps to rectify them? I believe it needs to be replaced by a new organization that actually lives up to its own standards.

 

[Kegg]

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

It is not simply "an American thing".

True. However, the scenario outlined in the OP is a uniquely American one - to the best of my knowledge the form of evangelical Christianity which associates the U.N. with the Antichrist is predominantly an American phenomeon. More broadly speaking, so are the fears that the U.N. is some sort of potential world government, though I think it's demonstrated quite adequately that it is far too powerless to be such a body.

Me, I overall support it. It's flawed, human, has been subject to a couple of scandals and definitely guilty of some of the still greater failings alluded to here, but it's an institution with the right idea and has also done and attempted to do a lot of good over the years - UNICEF and so on. That's saying something, and clearly the UFP is modelled on the transnational optimism the UN is supposed to inspire.

Some of the problems alluded to here are structural. The U.N. can only exist at the behest of its member nations, so it's not able to impose an ideology on them - if they vote en masse for a controversial measure to be passed there's little the U.N. could practically do. This is where transnational optimism intersects with the messy realities of national politics of numerous countries.

 

[Sci]

Some more thoughts:

not to mention that I do not think we should have to submit to an outside organization to determine our laws.

Fortunately, we do not. The only organ of the United Nations that is considered to have legal power to compel U.N. Member States to comply with its wishes is the Security Council, on which the U.S. and U.K. have veto power. Further, the Security Council is frankly so emasculated an organ that even when it passes a resolution that is theoretically binding upon the laws of U.N. Member States, the fact remains that it has no real enforcement ability. Other aspects of the U.N. system are only binding when its Member States' governments ratify international treaties and thereby give them the same status as a domestically-conceived law. And, on top of that, every Member State of the United Nations has the right to discontinue their membership in the U.N. Organization and thereby cease having any legal obligations to the U.N. at all.

Having said all that -- it's all well and good to talk about an "outside organization" for "our" laws. But what if the day comes when it might be better to stop categorizing something as "outside" and "not us?" What if the day comes when it's better for "us" to unite with "them" so that we're all "us?"

The states of the United States of America went through a painful process, but eventually, they realized that it was better to regard the other states as being "them" as well and to stop seeing the U.S. government as an "outside" organization, and to participate equally and democratically in the formulation of a body of common law.

No one's saying that we should give up our rights, mind you. If there's to be a planetary state a la United Earth in Star Trek, it will need to be a liberal democracy with the rule of law and it will need to respect international human rights. But the thing to remember is, governments are means to an end (securing the rights of their citizens), not an end in and of themselves. American independence is a means to an end (securing the rights of Americans) -- but the day may come when that end is better served through common unity with other nations.

But when it comes to the Federation, though...the UN seems like a precedent, but also the European Union. It seems like the member planets actually forgo their sovereignty when they become members. This is another reason I am not too sure about the UFP. I would be more comfortable if it were a mere alliance like NATO, however.

Well, you know, yeah, member planets do give up their sovereignty when they become Federation Member States. But, by the same token, the rights of their citizens are not violated, but are strongly protected by the Federation government, and the Federation Members themselves do have a great many areas of exclusive legal jurisdiction over which the Federation government apparently has no say and could not really stretch itself to gain authority even if it wanted to, because interstellar micromanaging just isn't a feasible system.

There's nothing inherently wrong with giving up your sovereignty to a larger polity, so long as you know that that larger polity will obey the same basic sets of laws and principles that the smaller polity did, and so long as you know that the larger polity will not be used as a tool for domination.

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

You gotta crawl before you can walk.

Your point is well made, but I fear a federation like the UFP couldn't truly be born from an international organization as corrupt, hypocritical and reluctant to self-examine as the UN. I'll be the first to cheer when a Terran global government is born from international alliances, but I don't think the UN is a good step. I personally believe the UN should be disbanded. Let us try again. We can learn from the UN's mistakes and make an effort to reproduce the experiment. Don't get me wrong, I believe something along the lines of the UN is essential and positive, but the UN as it exists is not good enough.

Hmm. Couldn't we just ratify a new U.N. Charter and re-organize its internal systems and get rid of its current leadership, but keep the legal continuity of the organization and its international symbols and property? You know -- keep what works and throw out what doesn't?

Edited to add:

My attitude towards the U.N. is that it is a flawed institution, but one which can be reformed and used for good. For better or for worse, the thing to remember about the U.N. is that when it describes itself as a tool of its Member States, it's being accurate -- the United Nations is what we choose to make it.

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?

And ultimately, we do need the U.N. -- or something to fulfill its role as an "honest broker," an international forum for all of the states of the world. Because the world is just too interconnected to survive without it anymore, and it's only going to get more decentralized from here. The days of unipolarity or bipolarity in the international arena are finished; the United States is no longer a hyperpower, and numerous other states are gaining in superpower status. The United Nations represents every country's best hope for managing the growing multipolar world order.

I agree entirely, but I'm definitely for the "Something to fulfill its role" option, rather than the "UN" option. If the UN were willing or able to change, it would have done so by now. Why do you think that after decades of non-action and denial it's suddenly going to grow a sense of responsibility and admit its mistakes, or take steps to rectify them? I believe it needs to be replaced by a new organization that actually lives up to its own standards.

Well, it seems to me that your basic objection to the United Nations, then, is that it lacks legal authority to act by itself, independently of its Member States -- that, basically, the issues you have with the United Nations are ultimately caused by the fact that the U.N. is an intergovernmental organization rather than a sovereign state in its own right.

Ultimately, though, I don't think an international state can develop without the (deeply flawed) foundations being laid by the U.N. (or by the League of Nations or the earlier attempts at international law).

 

[Sci]

By the way, I think we should all pause and congratulate Joshua Howard. However you feel about the United Nations, Joshua Howard has apparently managed to overcome a childhood full of indoctrination against the ideals of egalitarianism among nations and international peace and cooperation, and I think that's a wonderful thing.

Also, Deranged Nasat, you've spoken a bit about the United Nations as being partially responsible for the suffering of your people in the Balkans wars of the 1990s. Could you go into more detail on what you mean by that? (I'm not doubting you -- I think the U.N. shares a measure of responsibility, along with its most powerful Member States, for the failure to prevent the Rwandan genocide, for instance. I'm just curious for more info.)

 

[Deranged Nasat]

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?

And ultimately, we do need the U.N. -- or something to fulfill its role as an "honest broker," an international forum for all of the states of the world. Because the world is just too interconnected to survive without it anymore, and it's only going to get more decentralized from here. The days of unipolarity or bipolarity in the international arena are finished; the United States is no longer a hyperpower, and numerous other states are gaining in superpower status. The United Nations represents every country's best hope for managing the growing multipolar world order.

I agree entirely, but I'm definitely for the "Something to fulfill its role" option, rather than the "UN" option. If the UN were willing or able to change, it would have done so by now. Why do you think that after decades of non-action and denial it's suddenly going to grow a sense of responsibility and admit its mistakes, or take steps to rectify them? I believe it needs to be replaced by a new organization that actually lives up to its own standards.

Well, it seems to me that your basic objection to the United Nations, then, is that it lacks legal authority to act by itself, independently of its Member States -- that, basically, the issues you have with the United Nations are ultimately caused by the fact that the U.N. is an intergovernmental organization rather than a sovereign state in its own right.

I see how what I posted could easily point to that conclusion, but, no, that's not the case. Were the UN a sovereign state, it would still suffer the ideological shortcomings it does now, only be in a more powerful position, so the situation would be worse. I'm not saying the answer is "give the UN authority to act by itself", but rather "the UN realizes it isn't doing for humanity what it advertises due to ideological shortcomings and puts pressure on the member states to change their ideologies". I wouldn't be giving it official authority, merely encouraging it to condemn and criticize and offer better solutions, which, unless I'm very much mistaken, it can do anyway. That hasn't happened, though. The UN refuses to actually challenge, merely to play along with the destructive status quo.

The issues I have with the UN are its hypocrisy and immorality, and its short-sightedness that in the long run damages our people and their potential future. I do apologise if you think I'm taking this too personally, but until an official of the UN stands in frount of me and formally and sincerely apologises for its actions regarding my people, I cannot endorse the organization, even though I endorse strongly the idea of it.

 

[Sci]

^^ I'm not the least bit offended and you have no reason to apologize for anything -- your opinions are perfectly valid.

But I'm curious for more detail about exactly what you think the U.N. has done wrong, and how it could change. You're speaking very broadly right now and I'd like to hear more detail.

 

[neozeks]

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?

Well, like Sci said, it's just a tool, it isn't really independent in the sense that it can make it's own decisions and grow on it's own. It is pretty much completely dependent on the member states, especially in the most delicate peacekeeping role. The members suply (or don't) the money, the troops, personel, political will, the UN just coordinates. The Security Council, comprised of the most powerfull members, is where decisions are made. So if anyone should apologize for failures, it's the member states, not the UN itself.

I agree entirely, but I'm definitely for the "Something to fulfill its role" option, rather than the "UN" option. If the UN were willing or able to change, it would have done so by now. Why do you think that after decades of non-action and denial it's suddenly going to grow a sense of responsibility and admit its mistakes, or take steps to rectify them? I believe it needs to be replaced by a new organization that actually lives up to its own standards.

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.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I wrote a fairly long post about two years ago on the parallels between the Federation and United Nations vs. between the Federation and United States here.

Very interesting read: thank you for posting that. I actually agree with most things you wrote, even if I tend to think of the UFP as a parliamentary model with presidential influence, instead of the other way around, but that is really a small difference.

By the way, I think we should all pause and congratulate Joshua Howard. However you feel about the United Nations, Joshua Howard has apparently managed to overcome a childhood full of indoctrination against the ideals of egalitarianism among nations and international peace and cooperation, and I think that's a wonderful thing.

I agree with that, too. You made a long journey, Joshua, and we should laud you for that.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

By the way, I think we should all pause and congratulate Joshua Howard. However you feel about the United Nations, Joshua Howard has apparently managed to overcome a childhood full of indoctrination against the ideals of egalitarianism among nations and international peace and cooperation, and I think that's a wonderful thing.

Indeed. I second Sci's comment.

Also, Deranged Nasat, you've spoken a bit about the United Nations as being partially responsible for the suffering of your people in the Balkans wars of the 1990s. Could you go into more detail on what you mean by that? (I'm not doubting you -- I think the U.N. shares a measure of responsibility, along with its most powerful Member States, for the failure to prevent the Rwandan genocide, for instance. I'm just curious for more info.)

Ah, well, it's a little complicated, given that when I talk of "my people" in this manner, I'm not referring to nationality or faith or culture or any of the usual categories. These things are transitory and ever-changing. I'm referring to young adult and adolescent males in general, and the unique social pressures placed on them. I don't think it's too unusual- I know several women who see "women" as their people for similar reasons. Given the near-universality of certain distinct gender roles across the globe and throughout history, such concepts of identity make more sense to me than those of nation, faith, etc. I would also stress that such concepts of identity do not mean a lack of identification with other groups, too. A Jew might view "Jews" as his or her people, that doesn't mean he or she doesn't care equally for non-Jews.

Anyway, the actions during the Balkan Wars that I get so angry about- and my in-depth knowledge of the conflicts is not in fact what it should be, so if anyone with better knowledge wants to take issue with this, please do so- is where the UN supported decrees that young men and late-adolescent boys were not allowed to seek refugee status. They were turned back from the borders, even in some cases deported back to their place of origin. Other people were permitted to flee the conflicts, yet the group of people most vulnerable- the group facing almost certain torture and murder by the "enemy" and conscription by their own side- were not. The UN supported actions by the states involved to deny young men refugee status and a chance to flee because "they have a duty to stay and defend their country".

The UN not only ignored the rights of these young men, but fueled the conflict. Many of these young men faced three choices- 1) stay put and almost certainly be slaughtered, often after horrific torture, or at the very least be imprisoned in camps (and we all know the sort of things that happened there), 2) pick up guns and fight (thereby reinforcing the petty nationalistic struggles), or 3) flee as refugees. If the UN is helping the nations involved prevent 3), then the young men must face either 1) or 2). Any surprise they picked 2)? The UN, by reinforcing and justifying the view that young men have a duty to fight for a government, and subordinating their freedoms to the state, not only became responsible, indirectly, for these people's suffering but also fueled the conflict, and lay the ground for further conflict (and as long as young men are seen as a resource for war/threat, and placed in positions where they must fight, there will always be war).

The justification given, if I recall, was that if the UN had refused to play along with the "no young men" rule, the nations involved would have refused any refugees leaving. So, the UN was able to save many others by sacrificing the young men. Is that a good thing? Well, no, because young men have been sacrificed in the name of "the greater good" over and over again. As long as there exists the idea that it is permissable, war will always be with us. A view of young adult and adolescent males as disposible for the "greater good" is at the heart of near every conflict. That's exactly what the countries involved were doing! The UN even backed the idea that such was a young man's duty.

Universal rights and protections? No. Promoting peace? No. Reinforcing the very ideologies that fuel our planet's constant warfare? Yes.

The issue is that people really believe the "young men have a natural obligation to fight" nonsense, so that young men leaving the country were feared by those nations lest they should come back at a later date and join rebel militant movements- never mind that most of these young men were fleeing war. The states involved, like nearly all states, saw young men and teenage boys as warriors, pure and simple, and feared them. Thus, they wanted either to control them (conscription) or eliminate them (the liquidation of "enemy" young men), control or elimination being the standard procedures when a state fears a certain social group. By refusing an escape route to the young men in these regions, the UN justified this view of things and this state of affairs, and permitted it to continue.

 

[EmperorTiberius]

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.