Quote:
hermit22
I'm on the same wavelength as you, but I don't think that's a proper argument. The UN is a democratic institution, and, as such, its actions are dependent upon the actions and intentions of its members - just as the actions of our elected officials are, in theory, dependent upon the intentions of the people. The difference is that the UN is a bit more of a direct democracy (with the states as the citizens) than a representative one (like we have).
|
No argument from me regarding the nature of the UN, but in these couple of threads there has been a lot of criticism of the UN contrasted with 'we will do what the UN wants as long as it's convenient' and 'we will buck the UN, as we have done before'. Similarly, there's been a lot of UN-bashing, completely ignoring the very significant US involvement in UN decision-making.
In fact, US involvement in the UN seems to have been focused on vetoing resolutions that aren't in the US' best interest. China, for instance, is known to change its stance on vetoing resolutions, if there is a lot of general criticism. (since 1966, the US has vetoed a total of 75 times; all others vetoes in that time period, including those of China, Russia, and the former
USSR number 62. Even if you take the Cold War as a reason, US vetoes post-1991 still more than
double non-US vetoes)
Calling the UN democratic would only be appropriate if all relevant decisions weren't made by permanent security council. It would also help if all of those countries were to regularly pay their membership fees. Or if they were part of some of the relevant sub-organizations, such as UNESCO. (Leave no child behind, remember?)
X.