Have faith in the UN

sorry, Serbia's interest to retain the territory.

=D

I agree that the UN as it stands is largely ineffective; it has failed to provide its members with collective security, and the results of its peacekeeping operations are mixed at best.

However, you can't deny that the organization has power in legitimizing the actions of powerful states, who still seek its 'stamp of approval' when taking unilateral action. While Bush can invade Iraq without UN authorization, he nonetheless sought a S.C. resolution to protect America's national interest: security. On the other hand, he argued his case on the basis of humanitarian values to try to appeal to a global 'moral' concensus. Guising national interest within humanitarian rhetoric entails abuse, which is why the resulting occupation has received such bad press. The US can win wars, but it cannot maintain peace. Enter the UN.

You mention that special interest has ruined our political system. You also argue that on a global scale, special interests will spell the destruction of humankind. So are you arguing that protection of the environment, poverty reduction, universal education, and other 'special interests' are not worth discussing on a global scale? While states can and should deploy military force to protect their security interests, the UN serves to facilitate discussion on issues of collective interest. This ensures policy is more efficiently coordinated for collective benefit.

This goes along with your other observation:

"The argument that the UN will help US relations is silly. That's like saying Virginians are closer with South Carolinians because we are both represented in the Senate."

I agree that states are self-interested. However, this doesn't rule out the possibility that they can cooperate to achieve collective benefits. The UN provides what the Senate provides: a framework to discuss issues of collective interest.

I'm well aware of what's been happening in Kosovo. While the UN didnt authorize intervention (Russia blocked SC resolution, it didn't necessarily disapprove of it. Therefore, what does this reveal? Global concensus (reached through UN debate/discussion/resolution) recognizes the sovereignty of Kosovo, regardless of Russia's national interest to retain the territory. Kosovo independence = good standing with global public opinon, whereas
Iraq = bad standing, no UN resolution, unpopular, Obama 2008, etc.

China can't afford to hate us. Google: (china, economy, dependent, foreign investment, natural resources, communism prevents innovation of production, unskilled labour force.

The UN facilitates research + infosharing, as do many actors in global civil society. The difference is the way it is depicted in the media. UNDP = scholarly, professional, whereas Amnesty = Bono is queer.

The UN has many instruments to exercise 'preventive dimplomacy'. Again, this is largely through discussion and mediation, and if these fail, economic sanctions and deployment of force. The troubling aspect is that states are unwilling to contribute the necessary funding for peace keeping operations. The UN has about the same annual funding as the NYPD. Therefore, it has more success in reaching preventive diplomacy than actual operations.

Don't be so quick to dismiss the UN as ineffective and incompetent. The UN has about as much success in implementing policy as other parliamentary bodies. The question therefore is how to make this system of policy coordination more accountable to a wider set of actors, and how to make resolutions more effective.

Thanks for reading!

I don't trust my federal government to do significant good for my country or good on the global scale -- is a more powerful body capable of avoiding corruption and actually consistently doing good?

"Sure the United Nations is slave to the self-interests of states in the Security Council..." truer words have never been spoken and it is the reason why the UN is largely ineffective. Concession: smallpox was eliminated by the work of the UN and I commend it for that. However, I don't foresee them doing much more good as their power grows and the special interests that have ruined our political system will look like child's play compared to the destructive interference of special interests on a global scale.

The UN does not help US relations with the rest of the world. Russia, our enemy of yesterday, disagrees and hates us more than ever because of what we do in the UN. And China seems to side with Russia on every front so it wont be long before they hate us as much as Russia does if they don't already. (Run a google news search on the words: "Kosovo Serbia US Russia" if you aren't up to speed on some of the current disagreements we've got with Russia).

The argument that the UN will help US relations is silly. That's like saying Virginians are closer with South Carolinians because we are both represented in the Senate.

Information sharing should (and does) happen naturally and the UN is irrelevant in facilitating that.

Peace keeping missions called for by the UN are largely carried out by people in surrounding states of the area in conflict. States should try and help fix the problems in their regions naturally and if they don't then let the concerned nations that would call for it in the UN do it themselves.

Let the UN be in fiscal crisis; it should use the money we do give it more effectively in the first place.

IR buffs, have your say. Sure the United Nations is slave to the self-interests of states in the Security Council, but it nonetheless makes their actions accountable to global public opinion. It also facilitates research to better inform decision-making, and promotes trans-national info-sharing to achieve similar effect. As it stands, states are reluctant to provide the UN ample funding to coordinate successful peacekeeping operations, therefore the organization is in constant fiscal crisis. Lobby your reps to pass bills so we can stop making enemies of other states.