PUTRAJAYA: Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has failed to prevent wars, as many global conflicts arise from its member nations acting without consensus.
This might seem callous, but… the purpose of the UN was never to prevent wars from happening. The UN is an international forum, it is not a world government. The purpose is to create a space for nations to talk to each other, and to organize collective action on issues that the majority of members agree on. The UN was not intended to override the sovereignty of member nations - if it was, nations wouldn’t join in the first place.
That isnt really true, as most examples of what the UN does show. Conventions on all kinds of issues that are ratified are things that member states are technically obligated to adhere to, there just are few effective mechanisms to enforce them into it.
The international criminal court is probably the foremost example. A member state is not free to commit war crimes just because they want to, and all states are obligated to abide by the Geneva convention or face consequences for it. Although that is a convention that determines interactions between sovereign states, not interior issues.
But human rights conventions are also a similar obligation that member states are supposed to adhere to, and the UN is certainly capable of attempting to force member states to abide by them. Its just rarely effective. For example, the US refused to ratify conventions on labor organization rights over 70 years ago, and is obligated every year to answer to the UN why US citizens dont have those rights. In practice this means that every year the US tells the UN “because we dont want to give people those rights, our rights are good enough even if below standard” and then the UN can basically do fuck all about it simply because no one is going to go force the US government to comply. And since 99.9% of US citizens dont know or care that they lack labor rights that are considered human rights by the rest of the world there is no internal pressure. So the UN just has to let it go.
But that doesnt mean that on a technical basis that the UN doesnt have the authority to say the US is out of compliance when it is. And it doesnt mean that US sovereignty overrides international convention. It just means that in practice the US can flaunt international regulations on human rights. As do many other countries like Russia and China. The obligation exists, its just ignored
Right, that would be the kind of “collective action” that I mentioned… it doesn’t have anything to do with preventing nations from going to war with each other… the UN doesn’t have that kind of authority and never did.
The purpose is to create a space for nations to talk to each other, and to organize collective action on issues that the majority of members agree on.
Save for anything the USA says “nope”, like actual action against climate change, putting an end to the trade blockade against Cuba, etc - then the majority can go fuck itself
The Paris Climate Agreement and still binding, but a lot of countries would rather everybody else does something about it and petrostates want no action at all.
As for Cuba, the issue is taking action. Words are cheap, but nobody wants to actually help Cuba.
I disagree, the League of Nations was set up after WW1 with the specific aim of preventing another world war, their stated mission was to “maintain world peace”.
The League of Nations was absorbed into the United Nations, disbanding entirely in 1946, and the primary United Nations stated mission is again to “maintain world peace”.
So its specifically been created as a reaction to World War 2, and its forebear in reaction to WW2 - its goal has always been to maintain peace and prevent wars.
Its entirely fair for presidents/world leaders to call it out as increasingly ineffective in that goal, especially considering one of its founding ‘four powers’ (Russia, who maintains the membership powers of former USSR) is in the midst of a two year war of aggression with a neighbouring country. And two of the other founding powers (US and China) are frequently provoking war by attacking their neighbours. Their core mission is in shambles.
This might seem callous, but… the purpose of the UN was never to prevent wars from happening. The UN is an international forum, it is not a world government. The purpose is to create a space for nations to talk to each other, and to organize collective action on issues that the majority of members agree on. The UN was not intended to override the sovereignty of member nations - if it was, nations wouldn’t join in the first place.
That isnt really true, as most examples of what the UN does show. Conventions on all kinds of issues that are ratified are things that member states are technically obligated to adhere to, there just are few effective mechanisms to enforce them into it.
The international criminal court is probably the foremost example. A member state is not free to commit war crimes just because they want to, and all states are obligated to abide by the Geneva convention or face consequences for it. Although that is a convention that determines interactions between sovereign states, not interior issues.
But human rights conventions are also a similar obligation that member states are supposed to adhere to, and the UN is certainly capable of attempting to force member states to abide by them. Its just rarely effective. For example, the US refused to ratify conventions on labor organization rights over 70 years ago, and is obligated every year to answer to the UN why US citizens dont have those rights. In practice this means that every year the US tells the UN “because we dont want to give people those rights, our rights are good enough even if below standard” and then the UN can basically do fuck all about it simply because no one is going to go force the US government to comply. And since 99.9% of US citizens dont know or care that they lack labor rights that are considered human rights by the rest of the world there is no internal pressure. So the UN just has to let it go.
But that doesnt mean that on a technical basis that the UN doesnt have the authority to say the US is out of compliance when it is. And it doesnt mean that US sovereignty overrides international convention. It just means that in practice the US can flaunt international regulations on human rights. As do many other countries like Russia and China. The obligation exists, its just ignored
Right, that would be the kind of “collective action” that I mentioned… it doesn’t have anything to do with preventing nations from going to war with each other… the UN doesn’t have that kind of authority and never did.
Save for anything the USA says “nope”, like actual action against climate change, putting an end to the trade blockade against Cuba, etc - then the majority can go fuck itself
The Paris Climate Agreement and still binding, but a lot of countries would rather everybody else does something about it and petrostates want no action at all.
As for Cuba, the issue is taking action. Words are cheap, but nobody wants to actually help Cuba.
I disagree, the League of Nations was set up after WW1 with the specific aim of preventing another world war, their stated mission was to “maintain world peace”.
The League of Nations was absorbed into the United Nations, disbanding entirely in 1946, and the primary United Nations stated mission is again to “maintain world peace”.
So its specifically been created as a reaction to World War 2, and its forebear in reaction to WW2 - its goal has always been to maintain peace and prevent wars.
Its entirely fair for presidents/world leaders to call it out as increasingly ineffective in that goal, especially considering one of its founding ‘four powers’ (Russia, who maintains the membership powers of former USSR) is in the midst of a two year war of aggression with a neighbouring country. And two of the other founding powers (US and China) are frequently provoking war by attacking their neighbours. Their core mission is in shambles.