2

We know that United Nations was established in order to maintain peace worldwide? But there have been many wars between countries in history even after its establishment... So what exactly was UN doing at that time, what was its role? Regardless mentioning about various tense areas even in current era.. l

  • 1
    This question appears to be off-topic because it is about basic facts that can be found in wikipedia. The "United Nations" were originally formed in World War II to combat the Axis powers. – Tom Au Jul 31 '14 at 16:31
  • 2
    That's not a valid off topic reason @TomAu. If you feel the question lacks prior effort, downvote it. – yannis Aug 4 '14 at 3:15
  • @YannisRizos: OK. Close vote retracted. Downvoted instead for lack of research effort. – Tom Au Aug 4 '14 at 14:03
  • It looked like you clicked submit before you were finished writing – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Aug 4 '14 at 18:44
  • @SamIam I actually typed it, dont know maybe some error happened, but whatever, I got a satisfactory explanation. These facts are always falsified on internet, though not entirely, thats why i asked here and then there is the person claiming lesser effort put online, maybe he believes UN's truth is shown on net. – Manish Aug 4 '14 at 19:48
8

I see the point in critics you state, there were numerous wars which couldn't be prevented by UN. The purpose of UN is to prevent wars, genocides and to give a forum where all the members can try to solve their problems diplomatically.

The criticism isn't without base, previously the League of Nations failed for same reasons, by lack of power preventing the second world war, since influental nations left the LN. UN is different in a way that all great powers have veto power, so for a major nation the UN won't turn into a seriously burdening organization. In exchange of course it suffers efficiency decrease.

I would like to point out some cases when UN had it's purpose even if the efficiency might be a subject of debate.

  • There was no "World War Three". I am sure most of us are happy with this fact.
  • There were numerous examples when Nikita Sergeyevich Khruschev held speech in UN, once he banged his shoes in UN, I wouldn't say this is the nicest example of a diplomatic move, but it is obvious if he has the same amount of anger nearby the nuke launcher pad, things could go way worse. Fun fact: the photo of the incident is fake.
  • Kosovo independence didn't emerge to a long lasting war, which is more or less depended on UN peacekeepers.
  • Northern-Southern Cyprus conflict didn't turn into war.
  • Stabilization of Haiti since 1993

We can say: there is a purpose for UN, but it is obvious, it is not functioning with 100% success rate, and it will never do.

| improve this answer | |
  • So even you agree with the fact that the purpose of UN is not properly satisfied and its efficiency of functioning is very low.. – Manish Jul 30 '14 at 9:40
  • @Manish Well, what can I say? We don't have much to compare with, it functions better than League of Nations, I am sure it is not the maximum efficiency it provides, but can't tell what can be expected. – CsBalazsHungary Jul 30 '14 at 10:04
  • @Manish - Do you have a suggestion for a body that will work better. Keep in mind US, Russia, and China are unlikely to join a body where they do not have veto power. (read will never ever happen except in the dreams of some left eye idealist) There is a rather substantial movement in the US to with draw from the UN as it is and that is with us having the ability to veto anything we disagree with. – SoylentGray Jul 30 '14 at 13:50
  • 1
    @Manish - No its unofficial purpose is for superpowers to have a place to pull their strings in public so that there is less of a risk of the sting pulling happening in the dark being misinterpreted. If anybody is kept in check it is those countries that do not ally with either the US or Russia. – SoylentGray Jul 30 '14 at 16:52
  • 1
    Is not it NATO in Kosovo rather than the UN? Also, Kosovo independence is the OUTCOME of a war, where one of the parties (Serbia) was defeated. So it did not lead to a longer war just because one of the parties to the conflict has been already defeated by NATO. – Anixx Jul 31 '14 at 6:51
-5

The purpose of the UN is to have an open diplomatic channel between superpowers while letting the rest of the world feel important. This is why everything that has any impact goes through the security council, and all the permanent members get veto privileges. There were other stated goals about preventing genocides and war, but the UN has been pretty bad at both of those.

| improve this answer | |
  • 3
    I downvoted not because I disagree with this answer(because I actually agree) but rather because it is expressed opinion presented as fact with out references to support it. – SoylentGray Jul 29 '14 at 13:32
  • which part are you unhappy about lack of references? Its unlikely anything official exists stating the UN is a joke for the US, Russia and China to play with, documenting the various wars and genocides that occurred on the UN's watch is possible though. – Ryathal Jul 29 '14 at 21:57
  • I didn't down toe because the answer is so true but it doesn't really answer the question, haha. – Shahar Jul 31 '14 at 2:11
  • 1
    @Ryathal - The whole thing. If you can not back up the answer then it should probably not be posted. Alternately reword it so it is clear that this is your assessment rather than presenting it as fact. If you choose that route then I would also expand to explain why you have come to that conclusion. – SoylentGray Jul 31 '14 at 13:27
  • @Ryathal Even if you answer is correct, would someone else who is only vaguely familiar with the UN be satisfied by your answer? If not, then your answer does not accomplish it's goal. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Aug 4 '14 at 18:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .