Should the United Nations be disbanded?

Question

Every major country plays games with the rules, many minor countries do as well. What's accomplished by continuing the charades?

Answer 1

I would not care whether it is disbanded or not.   I do with the United States would get out of the UN and it would serve them right if we threw them out of the United states.

At the very least we should STOP funding all UN programs until we are treated better.

Answer 2

well from what i've seen they are pretty useless, all they they do is ***** and moan then pass a resoulution or 200 but nobody respects it and they continue to do what ever they were doing, h**l they cant even fed the starving with out messing that up

Answer 3

I think Security Council should.

Answer 4

It creates relationships between country, and as someone mentioned earlier, it helps create more honestly.  Also, the UN has other functions that help with peace keeping and humanitarian work.  The multi-national powers within the UN help to make these other functions work.  I would agree that there should be some changes perhaps within the UN, but the overall presence should remain.

Answer 5

No. The UN should not be disbanded. Not every country is playing on bending the rules. Its only  the US that is doing that. UN should not be disbanded as it represents the voice of all nations in the world. It is the US mindset to disband it as it wants to control all say and decision making.

Answer 6

Look at the League of Nations and our refusal to participate and what that contributed to 20 years later.

Answer 7

No not at all, I mean look at the way they're handling the situation in darfur, somalia went well too. Kofi Annan is perhaps the greatest leader the world has ever known. Of course this is dripping with sarcasm. The UN has been obselete ever since 9/11. I wish they'd relocate that forsaken place outta the US.

Answer 8

No, it shouldn't be disbanded, but it needs to be changed. What we really need is a real, democratic World Government with teeth and the ability to enforce laws and override national governments if so needed. The UN is a step towards that, but it does not get there itself. Regardless it is still a step and it should be improved.

Answer 9

No! It should not be disbanded.

It levels the playing field between nations.  It may not do it perfectly, but it is the best thing going at the moment.

Answer 10

No, what needs to happen is that it should be moved to a poor country that needs the most help. So those international politicians must face the problems first hand. Live it right along with the people that are suffering. Get them out of the US were they break our laws and quote diplomatic immunity. Maybe, just maybe then they might do something good for a change. If nothing else, think of all that money they would pore into a country's economy. Just to make their little lives better(the UN diplomats). If that can't be done, then yes disband it as soon as possible.

Answer 11

The United Nations must not be disbanded because it is at least helping countries to coordinate regarding economy, peace and order in this world.

Answer 12

yes!

Answer 13

This is a twisted reality.  In as much as the UN is essential and plays a critical role, it is also responsible for many failures.  Internally, there are many abuses going on within UN organisations.  If you had worked with some of them in the field before, you would be absolutely disgusted with some of the UN staff, especially how they abuse the banner of the UN.  Fortunately, for the rest of the world, there are still genuinely good people in the UN.

The problem with the UN is that the balance of power is solely in the hands of 5 major powers, namely the US, UK, China, France and Russia.  Nothing passes through the Security Council when one member vetoes it.  Each country has it own interests and would want to protect its own interests.  The attitude is "to the h**l with the rest of the world".  The Sec-Gen of the UN has the daunting task of trying to reform the world and having to navigate these 5 powers.

Would disbanding the UN help?  Unlikely, I think it would be worse because there is no platform to have proper discourse before missile and bombs flying all over.  Equality in the world would be driven further into the abyss.

Major reform - removing the veto rights of the Permanent 5 members and changing the balance of power within the UN, giving the Sec Gen the necessary powers is probably the best solution.

Answer 14

Keep it, but get it out of the USA

Answer 15

what i think is  the capacities of un peacekeepers should be built upso another   rwanda does not happen .what i would like though have not seen so far is for the isreali-palestinian situation to be resolved and for the israelis and palestinians to  go togrther on peacekeeping missions in africa  or else where what i mean is this  there could be a country in which israel and palestine exist at the same time this country would be called isreal-palestine in it citizens would be isreali citizens and palestinian citizens at the same time  the army of this country would be called the army of israel-palestine  this force would be transformed into a peace keeping force which would join the un on peacekeeping missions my thought is if this happened others might follow recruits could be found for peacekeeping forces instead of for other purposes   that people might like this idea  and this would create another country esteemed for the abilities of it's peace keepers  and with israel involved the capacitiesof the un would be doubled  and with the palestinians even  better   but an israel-palastine would have advantages beyond  the resources at hand tell me what you think it seems strange i know but the thought has interested me for some time

Answer 16

nope, it needs major reforming, especially in the Security Council where only the rich and powerful has a voice.

also, it needs to have its programs revised and reviewed to make them more effective.

it also needs to review the process in which members of organizations within it are elected.

it's absolutely an insult to the tibetans to have china in the UN Human Rights Org.

it must also be given more muscle and mandate in order to fulfill more its role in the persecuted parts of the world especially darfur, turkish kurdistan, irian jaya, karen area of laos, tamils in sri lanka.

it must also play a role in lessening climate change.....

it must remain, however...........

Answer 17

Yes, absolutely!

With the scale of of involvement the U.N. has in world problems they haven't really accomplished anything.  I don't think the concept of a Security Council helps.  We should replace the U.N. with an organization that gives everyone a voice.

Answer 18

Too many conspiracies and lies... Democracy never ruled... That's what UN is like today... and it hardly serves its purpose...

Disband? I don't think so... maybe disband the corrupted ones from resuming powers!

Answer 19

sometimes forces them to keep thier hands on the table a little. It's an outlet even if it's ineffectual but that can be adjusted. The thing that americans have forgotten is that the UN STOPS wars. it doesn't like to start them, big scary world out there, that is precisely why we need clear dialougue and discussion of grievences.

Answer 20

Yeah, it's become a pointless waste of time and money. I say world peace can only be achieved through force of arms.

Answer 21

Absolutly not.  One of the big reasons that it can't express its power world wide is the veto.  Another reason that it can't function properly is because some nations won't pay their dues - most notably the US who owea over $10 million.  They are holding this money to bully the UN into doing what the USA wants done.  

Sure there are problems with the UN but the UN must do is to rid itself of the d**n veto.  The UN is suposed to be a democratic organization.

http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/briefin...

http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/briefin...



http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/...

This is sort of like someone holding the ball until every one plays by his rules.  This is very unhealthy.  Indicative of juvenile thought..

Herdingi C.  -- do you have any facts to back up your reasoning?

Answer 22

No, the point of the UN was to prevent another world war. So in theory it has been a complete success.

Yes it could use an overhaul, and yes countries do play games with it. But thats better than not having an international forum for countries to complain to. Id rather them complain than go to war.

Just because we havent always agreed with the UN doesnt mean it hasnt done its part. The humanitarian efforts the UN does is worth its existence to begin with.

If the UN had created a more sound world order, people would be even more afraid of it, since it would be closer to a world government. I think the current balance is good.

On a side note, many from outside the US think that because we fund it the most, it is a puppet of the US.

Answer 23

YES. They have done NOTHING in the past to create world order, just  consume time and resources and work toward political agendas (ie. Global gun ban, oil for food, etc.)

Answer 24

Yes, absolutely. It should be disbanded as soon as possible.

Answer 25

I think it's important to recognise that in regards to its provision of international law, and criticisms that the UN fails to uphold or enforce international law, the point to note is that it sets a standard - a benchmark which states can measure the legitimacy (or illigitimacy) of their actions by. States are unwilling to act without the approval of the UN, and rightfully so. As has been also mentioned, the UN provides, through its many functions, humanitarian aid, a forum for debate on issues of security the environment etc. If it wasn't for the UN, states would be ablidged to take this burden upon themselves, and I'm not sure that they would be appriciative, or indeed able, to do so. We need the UN to remain in its many functions. It's embedded itself as a vital component in assuring global peace and security.

Answer 26

Humanity has made wars for thousands of years.  It makes wars very well.  Finally, humanity has begun to think that peace might be a good idea.  Humanity set up the UN a mere 67 years ago in hopes that it could help nations make peace.  The UN isn't very good at it.  Making peace is hard for people so used to making war.  Compared to thousands of years successfully making wars, 67 years of failing to make peace isn't a very long.  Maybe we should give the UN a little longer to learn to make peace.  Once the UN learns to make peace, and if we don't like peace, we can always start fighting again.

Answer 27

Never. they help with humanitarian efforts and are the base for so many international aid organizations that help millions of people. UN AID, WFP, and others are all run by the UN. they also mobilize peace keeping forces that saved millions and will protect innocent people, and provide a forum for international discussion and policy. they are very important and do have a huge kick when they actually go into an area.

Long live the UN, Long Live the USA, Long live the Queen, Long live the World!!!

Answer 28

If we disband the United Nations many of the international problems we know about today would largely go unnoticed or not dealt with simply due the fact they would not warrant global participation. it is bad enough that the country with the largest pocket of cash can almost dicate terms of involvement with the rest of the world. If we remove the only place where all nations should be 'equal' and able to voice griveances for needed change, what can we expect to be done once the only 'safety valve' is removed from the dam holding back the flood waters of chaos, neglect and potential world war three?