No, to both.

Power is consolidated with very few countries and the remainder have no real means of making change.

Most corrupt organisation in the world.

Disagree on that last comment.

The UN might have its corruption but there are too many vested interests for it to be pushed one way or another with any real certainty. Some of the member states exhibit far higher levels of corruption within themselves.

I was part of my high school's Model UN team. Kinda boring if you aren't a permanent member with a veto to wave around. The system is a little flawed. Maybe they should kick France off the permanent member's list :-)

Its humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts may be worth the price of admission. With a total yearly budget of just over $4 Billion it hardly seems to be a high price for the things it does. Our share is 22% of the total or about $1 Billion. Let's see... that would be about $3 per person. Hardly a significant amount. So - my answer - not as effective as it could be if it was properly funded (and given some real power)... but not bad at all for the price.

I don't want the UN to have any real power if the people who run it aren't elected. I don't really want an elected World Parliament at all either, but I have a feeling with all these continental unions going on that it will happen before I die.

one world government is terrifying to me.

I would rather there be a million governments than one.

Most people do not even know what the UN was created for. And that is in evidence here. It was not created to act as a world govt nor was it founded to solve the worlds problems or give the Veto Powers an absolute hegemony over the rest of the nations. It has one purpose and that is to act as a sounding board and a cooling off arena for international incidents. But more importantly it was created to quickly rally support against Hitler style dictatorships....in the hopes of avoiding another World War that is precipitated by a megalomaniac with some REAL power behind him. The League of Nations (its predecessor, was founded for a totally different purpose and had a different structure: It was created to stop a "chain reaction war" as happened in World War I.

I agree w/ sic....very scary for it to have real power until
A. we elect it
B. we are all a bit more psychologically mature
....but as a first step ...we could do a lot worse....a conglomerate run by corporate bodies would be an evolutionary backstep

El_Perro_Artero

Really? Me, too, actually. Have you gone or will you go to any of these this year?
SCVMUN
BMUN
NHSMUN

I'm familiar with the UN's history

a one world government is a bad idea period. it could be a fascist dictatorship or a direct democracy.
still a bad idea.

The League could have been a world government if it had lasted. It was a much more legalistic entity than the UN, and probably would have been used to keep imperialism in power indefinitely through that whole collective security idea. That's assuming the League was successful, of course.

I went to the UN on a leadership seminar in 2006 during the Lebanon War. We actually were going to see the Security Council meeting room but they had an emergency meeting the day we went. I got the feeling that the people there were just wasting time. What can they really do if a nation decides to attack another? The UN is just a vehicle for the really influential powers to state their opinions.

Also, it's a really ugly building.

To prove Sicarius' point....
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_n_acquires_nuclear_weapon

I'm off to Cornell with Wombat very soon for CMUNC...

I am looking forward to the corruption, especially as I get to be an advisor.

The reason why the UN sucks is because countries are out for themselves and permanently handicap the organisation. Its not a world government, its basically a massive charity organistion that is filled with ambassadors. It does do good, I'd rather have UN peacekeepers in my country than American soldiers.

Centurian - how quickly would you change your mind if your country (Canada or Australia if I remember correctly?) was being attacked?

I bet you'd welcome the sight of American soldiers then.

@pandarsenic - No, our club didn't really have any funds to travel much. We only went to MAMUN

completly useless....

The UN is now a tool for third world countries to complain. Granted, there are issues they deserve to complain about, but you can understand how the average American doesn't really like the UN when all that we ever hear come out of it is how horrible America is and how whatever we do do to help is never enough.

I can only imagine how Israelis feel about the UN!

It's not exactly efficacious but I probably wouldn't call it useless and would probably say it's still worth it in the end. It's really the only place that representatives of the world all meet regularly to discuss issues... It's good that there's a more public forum for it.

It's the global tab of the world Diplomacy game that is real life. =)

lol - I like that - the global tab of the world Diplomacy game. Yes - and the Global tab is not always useful... but it can be... and it's nice to have it there.

"I can only imagine how Israelis feel about the UN!"

lol...they obviously have no feeling about the UN. They continually defy it.

Sorry, had to say it...I'll stop now. :)

but yeah, I like Chris's example. It's the global tab.

I only use the global tab for jokes. The UN does the same thing.

@Invictus "I only use the global tab for jokes."

Your doing it wrong.

I'm sure you were mostly just joking there too, but seriously if you're only using the global tab for jokes you're missing out on a valuable diplomatic tool!

damn, that should of course be:

"You're doing it wrong."

I guess I'm doing that wrong.

Damn, you beat me to it.

"I can only imagine how Israelis feel about the UN!"

lol...they obviously have no feeling about the UN. They continually defy it.



yeah not to mention the whole you know...
israel shelling a UN building. that kinda illustrated how they feel about it

I meant the Israeli people, not their government.

How many of you would refuse a job at the UN, a nice high-salaried job?

Just wondering whether principles get in the way of profit here.

They wouldn't invite me, I'm too monolingual.

I might take it but it would be in futherence of some kind of plot I'm sure.

if I cared about money I would have a job

I'd refuse if only because I'd have to live in New York. I can't stand that city.

The UN said Israel did not shell the school after 5 condemnations about it.
They do not do anything besides demonize Israel.

I didnt say israel shelled a school. (though I know they did, I know peopel living in gaza)
I said they shelled the UN building.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/15/israel-shells-un-headquar_n_158078.html

and if the huffinton post isnt reliable enough for you just look into it, it was reported on by every major news network and newspaper in the world

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovugclIWMEk&feature=related

and on a rare occasion I agree with invictus, NY sucks.

although chicago's not much better friendo

Still... a forum where every country has an equal voice... in principle that's got to be worth trying to make happen.

Procedurally, it could do with changes, mostly with regard to the Security Council... I don't know.. I think if people lent it more support it would be more effective.

The reason I ask is I just came from representing North Korea in the Houston area Model UN, so El Perro I am like you..

And it just left me wondering, because it is very well-intentioned and it feels like it is just on the very edge of making a big difference.

How about proportioned votes based on population. Yes, it means China actually gets more votes than the US, but letting Switzerland or Denmark (or even England) have the same number of votes as the US is more inequitable.

From a purely English point of view, letting anyone have more votes than us is clearly wrong...

And I would welcome any thoughts/comments about MUN participation. As stated above, I am off to Cornell U very soon for their MUN (CMUNC) with Wombat and I would be grateful for any pointers/advice. We do not know his country yet but remain hopeful that it will be in the centre of things.

North Korea would have been a good one: great chance to stand up and declare war.

a forum where every country has an equal voice... in principle that's got to be worth trying to make happen.

I agree with that at least. but what the united nations is today... useless

being NK was a lot of fun... i made friends with the US and UK but voted against all their resolutions...

it was easy to attack and peacekeeping plan or whatever as a "plot by developed countries" against powerless countries to exert a "neocolonial influence" over the less fortunate. It was pretty fun I defeated some big resolutions like that.

Advice: Have the resolution-writing laptop. <_<

We put in a bid to get onto the Iranian delegation: that is the one I really would like. Wombat is going on is own so he will be joined onto another delegation and that is his chance: they might just need one more to reach critical mass.

I mean, imagine the mind-numbing alternative of being dealt Singapore instead and having to pretend to 'not be related to Lee Kwan Yue' in any way whilst boasting, in a silly English accent, that your extremely small nation is the centre of attention for the whole universe...

(Any Singies out there? My apologies for the rant.)

For those who cannot read code:

is = his, and Wombat is my young relative.

yeah... admittedly some countries suck to be.