2008 Woodie Awards
The U.S. Pulling the Strings of the United Nations
The U.N. was designed to promote world peace not be the puppet of the United States.
Kelsey Field
Issue date: 4/21/06 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 1
Special note to the United States: The purpose of the United Nations is to allow countries to get together on an equal playing field and battle over world wide decisions. It is actually not your little puppet to force them to do your bidding.
Part of having these organizations is to give up part of your state sovereignty in order to allow international cooperation to take place. It replaced the League of Nations in 1945 and back then it had 51 member states, and has since grown to encompass 191 states. It was meant to prevent war by assuring collective security, and to assure that protection the major powers at the time were given permanent spots on the Security Council. The countries were and are today the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China.
However, the Security Council clearly does not reflect the major powers of the world today. Not to mention it gives the north part of the globe huge power over the south part. But more so than that, there have been major wars SINCE the creation of the United Nations, which was meant to prevent wars. But if it is not serving its purpose, why hasn't it been revamped? Perhaps because the United States does not want it to be; it serves a very specific purpose for the United States, which is international "approval" of its ridiculous ventures. And if the United Nations, heavens forbid, rejects the United States' plans of action, which just won't pay our dues-which happen to be a huge part of the United Nations' budget.
Not to mention it essentially gives the decision making powers to a select few, while the rest are left without any say in the matter. If it was really meant to promote peace, then South America and Africa need to be included on the Security Council. But perhaps that would mean too many vetoes…so combine France and the United Kingdom because the European Union makes all it's other decisions as a whole, Russia needs to be kicked off because they are obviously no longer a global power, and India needs to be included as well, because they are a super power in today's world.
Some argue that despite its faults, the world needs the United Nations because it is the only functioning international organization of its kind. However, with or without it the world would continue on. The United States would have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq regardless of the Security Council's opinion (and in fact did), and diplomacy would go on. However, if the United Nations must continue on, it is about time the members come together as a separate entity from the United States. It should not be crippled by a lack of United States money, because that is how it is controlled by the US. It is not meant to be the United States rag doll, and must flex some muscles once in a while. Otherwise, who really is going to take them seriously?
Part of having these organizations is to give up part of your state sovereignty in order to allow international cooperation to take place. It replaced the League of Nations in 1945 and back then it had 51 member states, and has since grown to encompass 191 states. It was meant to prevent war by assuring collective security, and to assure that protection the major powers at the time were given permanent spots on the Security Council. The countries were and are today the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China.
However, the Security Council clearly does not reflect the major powers of the world today. Not to mention it gives the north part of the globe huge power over the south part. But more so than that, there have been major wars SINCE the creation of the United Nations, which was meant to prevent wars. But if it is not serving its purpose, why hasn't it been revamped? Perhaps because the United States does not want it to be; it serves a very specific purpose for the United States, which is international "approval" of its ridiculous ventures. And if the United Nations, heavens forbid, rejects the United States' plans of action, which just won't pay our dues-which happen to be a huge part of the United Nations' budget.
Not to mention it essentially gives the decision making powers to a select few, while the rest are left without any say in the matter. If it was really meant to promote peace, then South America and Africa need to be included on the Security Council. But perhaps that would mean too many vetoes…so combine France and the United Kingdom because the European Union makes all it's other decisions as a whole, Russia needs to be kicked off because they are obviously no longer a global power, and India needs to be included as well, because they are a super power in today's world.
Some argue that despite its faults, the world needs the United Nations because it is the only functioning international organization of its kind. However, with or without it the world would continue on. The United States would have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq regardless of the Security Council's opinion (and in fact did), and diplomacy would go on. However, if the United Nations must continue on, it is about time the members come together as a separate entity from the United States. It should not be crippled by a lack of United States money, because that is how it is controlled by the US. It is not meant to be the United States rag doll, and must flex some muscles once in a while. Otherwise, who really is going to take them seriously?
Be the first to comment on this story