Why don't the United nations assist countries under dictatorships to get rid of such regimes?

Question

Shouldnt this be part of the UN mission?

Answer 1

Are you speaking particularly about the military regime in Myanmar?

Firstly,the UN is powerless to do anything when their members don't want to cooperate.They're just a front for the most powerful countries.The smaller countries join the UN because if not they would be under scrutiny and possibly invasion,or as the US calls it,"liberation".The UN is only slightly more powerful than its predecessor,the League of Nations.As long as the regime sticks to itself,the UN would not intervene,but as soon as the regime try to annex other lands,the powers of the World will use the UN to intervene and invade that country and "liberate" its people.

Answer 2

R R is going to get owned by a Macedonian or Albanian one day.  Until then, its because they are busy r@ping kids in Africa:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Pu...

Answer 3

Well because the one method that works quickly to get rid of dictators is against the charter of the UN.War.The UN doesn't necessarily want freedom or democracy per say but wants peace.

Answer 4

how does the UN have any rights to invade other countries

Who would invade?  France ???

Who would replace the dictator..another dictator

The UN should be disbanded

Answer 5

Who determines who is a dictatorship? Who decides -- the majority of member countries or a unanimous vote? And who is going to pay for such?

Only the UN Security Council has any power to pass binding resolutions, and any resolution that comes before the council, no matter who supports it or how many support it, can be vetoed by any ONE of the permanent members -- the USA, Russia, China, France or the UK. And the UN has no army -- UN Peace-Keepers are actually militaries from various countries who do only what their own governments tell them (they take no orders from the UN). Any UN action must be invited by the host country itself -- the UN cannot go into a country where it is not invited.

There's also UN agencies such as UNICEF, UNDP, UNESCO, WHO, WFP, etc. -- again, any of their actions must be invited by the host country itself -- these agencies cannot go into a country where they are not invited, and they are NOT allowed to engage in any political activities, outside of what the government has invited them to do (such as observing elections, helping local people run their own elections, helping local communities set up local governance structures, etc.).

The power to change is still up to individuals and individual nations.

Answer 6

Because most of the members are from Totolitarian Regimes and would rather see Capitalists societies be the countries that change. Everytime you hear about how the USA is hated across the world, well,  a lot of that comes from UN leaders who hate the freedom the US gives to it's people.  They flatly do not believe in it.

Answer 7

baby i know they let you down last night but theres no need to give up on the football and g*y ronaldo questions.

the un's job is to create a world as s**y as greece,

but sometimes they  put the bar just to high

Answer 8

These are delicate matters. You can't invade every dictatorate country in the world. Think of the suffering that would occur.

Answer 9

Because part of the terms of being a member of the United nations is that countries respect your borders.

In the case of Iraq, there had been invasions into Iran and Kuwait, so the borders clause had already been broken.

I believe that it should be part of the mission, but the U N Charter would have to be re-written and all the countries re-join.

Answer 10

Hi,

You want a group of politicians (lets face it the UN is just that) to decide what government should and shouldn't be in other countries!!!!

Or should there be a world vote on it?, Oh the USA would be in trouble then.....

It is up to the people of a country to change or live with the government they have..

Answer 11

We've not only supported dictatorships in the past, but helped

to set them up, sometimes by fomenting coups to get rid of

regimes to install our own puppets, you know, like Saddam

tried to do in Kuwait -- where do you think he got the idea?

Just like Hitler got the idea for concentration camps from the

U.S.. During the Spanish American war in the Phillipines, the

U.S. rounded up thousands (I forget the exact number) and

then at the end of the conflict those held were machined

gunned down and burried in mass graves. The US learned

this from the Spanish in Cuba, then Hitler learned it from us.

The US was involved in the assasination of Perrone in

Argentina, installed and supported the bloody Pinochet in

Chile, helped to install Saddam in Iraq, the Shah in Iran, and

on and on and on. A movie about American foreign policy

during the cold war came out in the sixties I believe, called

"The Ugly American."

The U.S. hasn't opposed dictators so long as they were our

dictators, and they were plenty brutal and bloody, and we

tolerated these human rights abuses because these regimes

were by and large anti-communists regimes consisting of

rich and powerful interests alongside abject poverty, and

these folks wanted to keep things that way.

Bush would claim that his foreign is exactly what you are

suggesting, but in reality just getting rid of dictators is  a

simplistic notion of the role of states in the 21st century.

It's not so easy to just eliminate a dictator, and then what --

then things fall into chaos ten times worse than life under

dictatorship. To occupy a country and attempt to impose

your will to set up constitutions and institutiions is not at all

an easy task.

There have been success stories when the entire international community acts in unison toward establishing

peace and stability, in cooperation with local indigenous

peoples. I think Campuchea (Cambodia) is such a success

story.