[deleted]
Comment on [deleted]
grte@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
The UN is a diplomatic structure that exists to give state’s representatives a place to gather and talk. It’s not a world government. If it had been created with the intention of being one, no one would have signed on.
violet08@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
Skullgrid@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The term “democratic” does a lot of heavy lifting
there is only one instance of the word “democratic” and it’s you saying it. He didn’t edit his post. Why are you so hell bent against the UN?
violet08@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
[deleted]DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Honestly, I don’t think the vetoes are the main issue. In international diplomacy/law, enforceability rules discussions. If all the small countries vote to prevent the US-Iran war and intervene against the US, good luck enforcing it. The vetoes just reflect this reality.
The UN helps coordinate where there is a will to cooperate, but it can’t govern the world, whether veto power exists or not. What could be done to improve this I am not sure, but it is not as simple as removing the veto.
mushroomman_toad@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
The UN used to be involved in peacekeeping. The problem is that the world is more divided than it was before. UN peacekeepers used to patrol Gaza. They defended South Korea.
As it is now, the US has completely removed most funding from the UN. Even if the deliberative bodies wanted to be more involved in world conflicts, they don’t have the funding anymore to do so. Trump is trying to strangle the UN to make room for his dictator council.
Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
Wait until you learn about the UN’s role in the Korean war.
couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Would you consider yourself complicit?
Donkter@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
If you meant diplomatic then the rest of your sentence regarding veto powers makes no sense. You clearly meant democratic the first time.
real_squids@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
For a “place to gather and talk” they sure do use a lot of money and resources. Maybe they should switch to remote work lol
VinegarChunks@lemmus.org 3 weeks ago
The UN budget for 2025 was $3.7 billion.
ungeneva.org/…/general-assembly-approves-372-bill…
For comparison, global chewing gum sales in 2025 were $48.68 billion
Klear@quokk.au 3 weeks ago
That explains why the UN doesn’t kick ass.
real_squids@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
10 million per day still seems like a lot, though we don’t know how much the sitting around and talking part actually uses since the article mentions this:
The regular budget funds UN programmes across key areas, including political affairs, international justice and law, regional cooperation for development, human rights and humanitarian affairs, and public information.
Zombie@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
seems like
You clearly know what you’re talking about, Professor.
Zer0_F0x@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Trump’s “Board of Peace” is intended as basically official world police and several countries have signed up for it because they want to actively enforce “peace” towards anyone they disagree with.
The UN will never succeed in anything useful unless their resolutions carry economic or military weight.
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
To justify and “legalize” imperialism and the capitalist world system more like.
Zwiebel@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
? The soviet Union was a veto member no?
TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Exactly. The UN is NOT a world government and we need to stop expecting it to act as one. That was never the intention of the UN.
That being said, a lot of people talk about the necessity for the “rule of law,” but there cannot be the rule of law without some kind of government with the authority to enact and ENFORCE laws. If nations are not willing to sign on to something like that, we cannot have the rule of law. Instead we will have the rule of whichever country has the largest, most powerful military and/or economic influence. I know a lot of Americans are fine with that arrangement because that position is currently occupied by the US, and has been for more than half a century, but the US might not always occupy that role. How would you feel about this arrangement if China, for instance, were the world’s hegemon instead of the US?
Capybara_mdp@reddthat.com 3 weeks ago
Its got to start somewhere, we have to agree on something, or its going to get a lot hotter in a lot of horrific ways. I hate the hair splitting, the “yes, but what abouts”- things are getting bad out there and it has to stop. There are 190 other countries that are putting up with this, isn’t that enough to enforce something??