Is united nations a biased organisation? if not how ?
446634
The organization is biased. Specifically, it is biased towards the 5 permanent members of the Security Council (Russia, United States, United Kingdom, France, China.) The Security Council passes some of the most important measures in the UN and is usually the one that prompts a serious international effort (not the general assembly as might be believed.) It has those 5 permanent members and 10 elected members. Yet if a measure goes to vote there and ends up 14 For and 1 Against, and the one "against" happens to be one of those 5 permanent members... The measure fails. \n\n14-1 and 1 wins. This is why the UN can't usually pass any serious measures. Most major world problems involve 1 of these 5 countries and therefore they and they alone can prevent any action against their interests by simply vetoing the resolution, regardless of world opinion.
835821
You're spot on. The UN is acting as a country unto itself. Their inability to operate effectively is proof. They sit on their bloodstained hands when they are needed most and point fingers and accuse when they need to STFU and sit quietly. The graft and deception going on in the UN almost makes the governmental back room dealing a non-issue.
977806
No I don't think so as the UN has already chosen Ban Ki-Moon as the sucessor to Kofi Annan.\n\nThe debate has been long gone and over. You're a couple of months too late to start thinking about it now!
122040
Wikipedia has a great article on the United Nations, and section 4 of the article specifically discusses how the UN is funded.  The US is assessed 22% of the budget of the UN.  The US is currently more than $1.3 BILLION in arrears to the United Nations.  This is largely because Congress doesn't want to send the United Nations money unless the United Nations takes certain specific actions in the best interests of the United States.\n\nThis isn't to say the US is any worse than anyone else.  The US is only one of many countries that do this.\n\nHope this answers your questions!  The comparison to the "rest of the world" can be found in the first link below.
540192
I would like to see the United Nations become an agency with more teeth to it. It seems that most of the time, they sit around and talk and then after a few months of "You really ought to not do this or that", they get around to discussing possible sanctions, and ask permission to go see what may be going on. They don't act with enough authority. It would appear that any court of any of it's members could do a faster job of resolving a problem. (Maybe not to every ones satisfaction.) Why does it take the U.N so long? They need to become a world court that you don't mess around with.
168580
How is promoting democracy and fighing terrorism equivalent to wanting to rule the world?  And why should we respect the U.N.?  Respect is earned and the U.N. is a marginal organization at best.
733606
Publicity stunts are what the UN is all about... Who cares about third world nations? people who like being seen as humanists. Who doesn't? the UN... They are rooted deeply in diplomatic advancement but want so much for the world to see them as something worth paying attention to. They have an agenda entirely separate from saving the little man in the poorer countries. As a matter of fact, they are built on the exploitation of the same people they pretend to advocate. But being a cry out against inhumane treatment of the defenseless little guy gets them money and notoriety, two things they desperately want.
1090238
UN is a joke corrupted by France, Germany, Russia, China.
878680
The goal of the United Nations was to increase discussion between nations in an effort to prevent global conflict.  But has it worked or does it really have any jurisdiction over its members, no.  Many nations, such as the United States of America, have failed to ratify much of the UN charter.  For example, the US has not ratified the International Criminal Court, a separate judiciary entity somewhat affiliated with the UN.  However, the UN does play a somewhat integral part in maintaining communication with outside nations. A great example is the UN's efforts to aid with peacekeeping in Darfur.  Though this is seemingly unsuccessful, the UN has worked to maintatin the prescence of peacekeeping troops in the region. \n\nHowever, this leads to more problems.  Throughout the years, peacekeeping troops have been known to rape their refugees and commit other inappropriate acts during their mission. This increases the negative opinion of the UN and its actions among nations.  In addition, when nations such as the US blatantly violate the charter and the UN declarations, it suggests the ignorance of global opinion. These events lead to greater tension between nations instead of increased pacifism, as the body is designed for. \n\nNo nation, due to the act of sovereignty, must abide by the laws of the UN.  This is solely because if the rules of the UN were more heavily imposed than national law, prominent UN nations, the UK, US, France, etc., would have greater precedence in the domestic politics of smaller nations, such as Swaziland.  This would lead to an almost imperialistic setting where global superpowers would be able to enact laws that colonized developing nations and poverished nations.\n\nI hope this answers your question!
738904
Rock, you refer to that exclusive club called the Security Council of the United Nations.\n\n5 permanent members are China, France, Russia, UK and USA - with the power to co-opt members as and when necessary.\n\nSince these guys rarely agree on anything, it doesn't matter that no other member Country is permament.\n\nThe full United Nations membership is a different story....
758590
Yes.  The UN is ineffective.  Look at Darfur.  They have done nothing to stop the genocide.  And the libs wanted nothing to be done in Iraq either.  I guess gassing the Kurds and torturing innocents is nothing to be concerned about
243266
The United Nations is weak, indeed. The weakness of the organization stems from the widespread corruption throughout its ranks.\n\nMany of the UN's poorer members (as well as many of its socialist members) view it as an opportunity for wealth redistribution. Take a look at the amount of money contributed by each member nation versus the benefits received by each member nation. I am not saying that helping poorer countries is bad. Indeed, every nation should help out as much as they can. However, help should be voluntary and not forced through the United Nations.\n\nMany top individuals are corrupt, including the Secretary General. If you think the US government is corrupt regarding some of the defense no-bid contracts, you should look up what goes on in the United Nations. Not only are no-bid contracts common, NOBODY can summon the records. When an investigation becomes necessary, it is always conducted by UN members who find no wrongdoing. The company that Kofi Annan's son works for received numerous such contracts.\n\nThese are things that I certainly DO NOT want my tax dollars paying for.\n\nNOTE FOR EMILYROSE: An organization for peace is certainly a worthy goal. But when diplomatic options have failed, the UN has shown in recent history that they have nothing to back up their resolutions. Iraq thumbed its nose at the UN for a decade before something was done - and it wasn't the UN that did it. Countless resolutions regarding the Palestinian state and Israel have been passed (some for and some against each state). Each government laughs them off. Iran is now thumbing its nose at the UN. We'll see what happens. If the United Nations is not willing to go to war to back up the resolutions of the international community, they should disband and all go home because nothing will ever get accomplished. Kind of like what is happening now.
543885
Isn't the United Nations a fulfillment of that purpose?
402987
The UN is basically worthless. They don't side with the democrats specifically, but they like to think they live in a fantasy land of peace at any price, same as the dems.
710801
The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate co-operation in international law, international security, economic development, and social equity. It was founded in 1945 at the signing of the United Nations Charter by 50 countries, replacing the League of Nations founded in 1919.\n\nThe UN was founded after the end of World War II by the victorious allied powers in the hope that it would act to prevent and intervene in conflicts between nations and make future wars impossible or limited. The organization's structure still reflects in some ways the circumstances of its founding, which has led to calls for reform. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council, each of which has veto power on any UN resolution, are the main victors of World War II or their successor states: People's Republic of China (which replaced the Republic of China), France, Russia (which replaced the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, and the United States.\n\nAs of 2006, there are 192 United Nations member states, including virtually every internationally recognized independent country. From its headquarters in New York City, the UN's member countries and specialized agencies give guidance and decide on substantive and administrative issues in regular meetings held throughout each year. The organization is divided into administrative bodies, including the General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council, Secretariat, Trusteeship Council, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), as well as counterpart bodies dealing with the governance of all other UN System agencies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). The UN's most visible public figure, and the representative head, is the Secretary-General, currently Kofi Annan. On 13 October 2006, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon was approved by the United Nations General Assembly as the world body's eighth secretary-general and the first Asian to hold the post since 1971; Ban will assume the post on 1 January 2007.\n\nAims of the UN\n\nThe stated aims of the United Nations are to prevent war, to promote human rights, to provide a mechanism for international law, and to promote social progress and improved living standards. [6] It gives the opportunity for countries to balance global interdependence and national interests when addressing international problems. Toward this end it ratified a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948....\n\n....In reality it's a w@nk-fest!! for want of a better word...\n\n...they will get their massive world army soon and when they do they will report to no one & they've already proved they cannot be kept in check! just go to the website in wikipedia...successes and failures...
1121789
When the U.N. doesn't put countries like Sudan on the Human Rights council, we might consider the U.N. a viable force in the world, but until they clean up their act, end the corruption that has been proven and admitted to by the U.N., it's kind of silly to expect us to help elevate an organization like the U.N. into a position of being able to dictate to us.\n\nBesides, it's supporters and most "World Government" supporters seem to be fairly good at alienating the West by calling them names.  Look at your own question.  Look at the attitude of the number 2 man in the U.N.\n\nKind of silly if you want support.  Seems you just want to insult people to make yourself look better.  Doesn't work well.\n\nTry a more enlightened debate.  I'll join.  Until then, it isn't worthy of being more than a talk show.\n\nOh, do you really expect a country to debase or avoid using their own assets in their own interest?  Wouldn't that be kind of silly?  Or do you mean that we should sacrifice our own self-interest to give YOU what YOU want?\n\nWhen you have done as much as we have to make our country great, when you have a Bill of Rights worthy of our respect, when you support Free Speech over political expediency, when you support the democratic ability of the people to choose their own government, then you'll have our support, and mine.\n\nAnd we see you sacrificing your self-interests, we'll consider doing the same.  Until then it's just begging and then bitterness when the country you are begging from doesn't give you a handout.  Earn it yourself.
1040772
I am outraged! --- I have been for some time now...\n\nI've said it before, and I'll say it again:  I cannot begin to fathom how ANYONE would entrust ANYTHING to the tainted bureaucracy of the U.N., especially when led by the woefully corrupt Kofi Annan...\n\nThe U.N. needs to be COMPLETELY OVERHAULED, or DISSOLVED. Until any of those things happens, I suggest that the U.S. and its allies take a a long and scenic detour off of the U.N. 'Pretentiousness Highway'...