People treat the UN like it's a world government, but nothing could be further from the truth. UN resolutions are only suggestions unless major countries don't veto them. The only time it passed a powerful resolution was during the Korean War, and that's because the Soviet Union was boycotting it, so they couldn't veto it.
@@SpartanJoe193The people who are part of the technical staff of the UN are some of the smartest, most ethical, hard-working and competent people in the world. But their organization is toothless and the political part can easily be used as an instrument of oppresion.
And the reason the USSR was boycotting it was that Taiwan (Republic of China) was recognised as the 1 true China, despite not being present on the mainland in any real capacity.
The UN is basically an international group chat, they can only suggest resolutions for any given conflict but cannot enforce them, especially since there are 5 countries with veto power and wildly different geopolitical interests.
Haha international group chat. But unfortunately this is true. No big country will agree on serious regulations about big issues like wars because as you said they have wildly different political interests. Plus each of the big countries will always play games to get the upper hand on the others.
And as long as one of the 5 can veto anything, then it will be hard to solve any problems. I am very much for the UN, but the veto options by lets say Russia or USA makes it very difficult to find a solution for some of the more pressing conflicts.
Couldn't simply abolishing the UNSC veto go a long way towards revitalising the UN? I know the big five won't want to give up their powers, but here the fact that the powers are split down the middle 3:2 on most geopolitical issues could mean that they could be persuaded to renounce the veto on the proviso that the "bad guys" did likewise.
What about the balken war of the 1990s when the UN whent in did stuff realized they needed air cover and called in Nato? Like was that war a perfect use of the UN in a conflict?
The biggest issue is that the security council's 5 permanent members are always the countries that have interests in foreign nations, and that are the most keen to veto any resolution against their interests. Giving them veto power is like letting a drunkard decide if his alcohol should be taken away.
The UN is just the table of negotiations. If the people around the table can't come to a collective decision and act accordingly, it's hardly the table's fault.
If the purpose of the table is to facilitate negotiation, but the table is incapable of performing that task, then why keep the table? I use my table to hold food and stuff off the ground. If my food fell through the table every time I tried to use it, I would toss it out and build a more functional table. The UN does not work. Keeping it is dumb. The smart move is to replace it with something more functional. When the League of Nations failed, nobody said "It's just a table". They said "It doesn't work, toss it out". And we got the somewhat less useless UN. Which sorta worked for a while. Time for the next step.
@@pkz420because the table has worked more often than not. You don’t throw out your car when the radiator breaks, you try and fix the radiator. You don’t trash your car and just walk to work.
@@pkz420The problem lies with convincing those who have entrenched advantages (like the veto) to give them up in the broader interests of humanity. Everyone is playing the game for their own ends.
the un is an organization for international diplomacy and cooperation, not a world government. if you expect the un to do something it's not meant to do, of course you will be disappointed. There's no way to make a un like organization work if the superpowers and great powers aren't interested in cooperating (unless you give the un an army and a monopoly on nuclear weapons i guess, but i doubt that's the kind of world almost anyone wants to live in)
Flawed description. For the Perm. Veto countries its a Place to make decision and politics. For all others it is like you discribe. So please correct yourself, because the whole Design of un is bullshit.
UN always bias to its ‘funders’ & veto countries. It’s just hypocrisy organisation that imposed its values & agendas towards developing countries. If it’s truly trustworthy organisation, how come 1 vote from veto country can cancelled all votes from world nation?. Like a clown !mp3rial1sm joke ❤️
The UN constantly panders to illiberal and authoritarian regimes while lecturing liberal regimes and democratic ones. An immense sense of urgency for condemnation for the ones that follow rules but none for the ones that constantly break them. What can be expected of the coming irrelevance of the UN, we saw this with COVID too, in which WHO had no tact or urgency to demand China to just release info that everybody else does, then constantly babies it.
The UN lacks urgency. That's the problem in a nutshell. I was as opposed to the Iraq War as the next guy but I understand why it happened. 9/11 showed the world what happens when you get complacent and rely too heavily on diplomacy with an enemy that will not negotiate. Hussein was unwilling to engage with anyone and Bush clearly wasn't willing to gamble the idea that he might be stockpiling WMDs so soon after the terror attacks. At any other time I imagine there would have been more restraint but 9/11 put everyone into a state of such extreme fear and frustration it was always going to happen.
After the League of Nations failed, the UN was reborn from the ashes of the outrage of Hitler genocide. It's only a fitting end for Israel to bring its downfall
The security Council nations have always vetoed whatever they didn't feel like doing and just acted on their own multiple times, sometimes even against UN resolutions they didn't even bother to argue, the real question here is when has the UN ever been relevant?
The UN is heavily relevant. The UN helped create international shipping standards, languages for aviation, creating bodies to resolve trade disputes, etc, etc. The problem with the UN is there is a great many people who are never taught what the role of the UN is and politicians take advantage of that drafting and supporting stupid resolutions they know will either not pass in order to rile up their own citizens or will pass but be entirely symbolic so their citizens will feel proud of whats been achieved. The reality is if a resolution passes it's useless on its own, nothing the UN passes is binding they have no authority over member states. Unless a state ratifies a UN resolution through its own legal system it does not apply to them. Although there are obvious exceptions, you can usually tell if a person knows nothing about the UN when they bring up "international law" and/or "it violates the UN" "the UN says" usually they are referring to some bullshit that simply does not matter in reality.
the problem with the permanent security council is that it is undemocratic and the members are not held liable for their actions. There's also the security council, which is bigger than the permanent security council, but they do not have veto power to abuse
I found myself asking the same question, but this video seems to answer that pretty clearly - the current phase of decline was in large part started by the Iraq war. Which is to say it started before i was old enough to remember anything, so all I have ever known is an inept UN that no one pays any attention to. How old are you, out of interest?
The idea of the UN is good and its a good humanitarian organization, but not the greatest peace maker. The way its designed in restricts itself. Veto is one, anything can just be halted if a veto member wants it. Soverign, nations don't like to be told what to do and if you cant enforce it then the rules might as well not apply. Also having nation which break human rights constantly on the human rights council is stupid. I am a bit scared because we are seeing lots of parrallels with WW2. The League of Nations (the UN before the UN) had lots of conflicts and moments where countries just quit it or ignored it (Abysinnia, Manchuria, lots of civil wars and border issues) vs (Rwanda genocide, Bosnia-Serbia, Ukraine, Armenia, Israel-Palestine, Mynamr, South 'China' sea. I hope WW3 doesn't come around, but I feel like we are one big economic/resource crisis or conflict away from the spark that starts the fire (1930's economic crash)
I think distrust for UN started even before Iraq invasion. NATO similarly ignored UN and bombed Serbia in 1999. Also UN completely failed to prevent Rwandan Genocide and they just stood by while 800 thousand people were slaughtered. In Serebrenica they even helped VRS to separate men and women,not to mention that UN "safe zones" in Bosnia and Croatia were completely useless. We could go even further than that...
NATO does not need approval from UN, and since it's preety useless, yea it can ignore it. that's however, because of uselessness of UN, not because of NATO
You mean when NATO intervened in Serbia to stop ethnic cleansing? I am glad they ignored the UN for reasons you highlight with your Rwandan point. I think people think that the UN is some kind of international diplomatic kumbya rather than a hotbed of politicking and international backstabbing rife with corruption.
@@eyalamit5120 Serbia wasnt just bombed, terrorists and murderers were eliminated there, as usually, like every Kremlin supported 5darasts, those were hiding behind civilians!
UN: We need to talk about *insert conflict or humanitarian crisis here* Major power causing said conflict/crisis: No we don't. (veto) UN: Understandable, have a nice day. This pretty much answers the question.
In regards to geopolitical conflicts involving superpowers yes. However outside of that the UN does a lot of good. And I am not sure what people expect the UN to do. It's ultimately a forum not some powerful supernational world government.
@@MrVidman14it doesnt have to be black or white. Its very complicated when its about matters in small countries that have no real power, thats when UN can push its weight to actively solve the problem. But it becomes super simple when it comes to giant powers that hold veto privilege. When they say something everyone else shut ups, and they do whatever they want regardless of how the rest of the entire world feels, end of story.
The UN often presents itself as a world government and certain people treat it as such when it suits. However, it isn't a a governing body it is a forum for international co-operation despite what a bunch of career politicians and bureaucrats say.
@@sino_diogenes I don't agree either regarding whether it presents itself as such or not. But I agree with other part, it's just a forum. A rather weakened one.
Everybody says this every now and then because they are expecting the UN to do every impossible thing in the book like enforcing permanent world peace of becoming sort of a global government. Yet they keep doing their thing, slowly yet steady. Voting in the assembly tells us a lot about the state of geopolitics and the agencies do a lot of humanitarian work. It's far from perfect (we all know the Hunan Rights committe is a joke) but the discourse around it is sooo simplistic it's tiresome
Nah, the bigger point (and anxiety) is how the UN today is more and more mirroring the impotent League of Nations as that institution neared its end, and how that end of the League of Nations preceded WW2.
No, the problem is if there's a resolution about to be done to a country or a conflict that contradicts with the 5 veto countries interest, they can veto it and affectively prevent it
Same thing happened with the League of Nations. Its purpose is to be a place for diplomacy between members and thats it. If it does start acting like a government then we are in trouble
The UN is not objective and cannot be objective when it is basically a representation of the number of countries aligned with each of the world's major cultures. There are more than x100 times Muslims in the world as there are Jews and there are 50 Muslim majority countries while there is only one Jewish state, and the only people that feel directly invested in any Israel-Palestine situation is Israel itself, to an extent the US, and the numerous Muslim countries which are almost unanimously automatically aligned with the Palestinians regardless of the facts on the ground. The UN proportionally gives voice to those numerous Muslim countries, and in turn the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council are an ironic joke. From UN Watch: "From 2015 through 2022, the UN General Assembly has adopted 140 resolutions on Israel and 68 on other countries. For texts and voting sheets, see the UN Watch Database, which will include the 2022 UNGA resolutions after they are published by the UN in January 2023. The UN Watch Database also documents that from 2006 through 2022, the UN Human Rights Council has adopted 99 resolutions against Israel, 41 against Syria, 13 against Iran, 4 against Russia, and 3 against Venezuela". Another breakdown of 2022 resolutions: "2022 UN General Assembly resolutions on: 🇰🇵 North Korea 1 🇦🇫 Afghanistan 1 🇻🇪 Venezuela 0 🇲🇲 Myanmar 1 🇱🇧 Lebanon 0 🇵🇰 Pakistan 0 Hamas 0 🇩🇿 Algeria 0 🇹🇷 Turkey 0 🇷🇺 Russia 6 🇨🇳 China 0 🇶🇦 Qatar 0 🇸🇦 Saudi 0 🇮🇱 Israel 15 🇨🇺 Cuba 0 🇸🇾 Syria 1 🇮🇶 Iraq 0 🇮🇷 Iran 1 🇺🇸 U.S. 1" List of current members of the UNHRC (end of term in parenthesis): Algeria(2025) Benin(2024) Cameroon(2024) Côte d’Ivoire(2023) Eritrea(2024) Gabon(2023) Gambia(2024) Malawi(2023) Morocco(2025) Senegal(2023) Somalia(2024) South Africa(2025) Sudan(2025) Bangladesh(2025) China(2023) India(2024) Kazakhstan(2024) Kyrgyzstan(2025) Malaysia(2024) Maldives(2025) Nepal(2023) Pakistan(2023) Qatar(2024) United Arab Emirates(2024) Uzbekistan(2023) Vietnam(2025) Czechia(2023) Georgia(2025) Lithuania(2024) Montenegro(2024) Romania(2025) Ukraine(2023) Argentina(2024) Bolivia (Plurinational State of)(2023) Chile(2025) Costa Rica(2025) Cuba(2023) Honduras(2024) Mexico(2023) Paraguay(2024) Belgium(2025) Finland(2024) France(2023) Germany(2025) Luxembourg(2024) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland(2023) United States of America(2024)
You could replace the UN with a Discord channel that each country's foreign affairs department has access to and would literally not be able to tell the difference. The UN physically exists primarily to spruik business class seats on international flights for their well heeled staffers.
Did you ever search how much UN contributed to public health, education, eradication of poverty, conflict resolution etc? It is not irrelevant institution.
@@IndiaTides Last time I checked, you can have a meeting about public health over Zoom. Why do you need Stubbs McGee, a silverspooner from the capital of Ivorytoweria, to get $15k flights to New York, paid with taxpayer dollars, just to be late to the UN meeting anyways because he was enjoying putting his $200/day meal allowance to use at a Fifth Avenue cafe? It's not like he and his compatriots will do any real work anyways since all the real work on the ground is going to be outsourced to contractors or national governments. There is nothing that the UN does that can't be replaced by internet forums and online meetings which in its entirety cost less than $100/month in server capacity.
UN is much more than representatives sitting in an auditorium insulting each other: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_specialized_agencies_of_the_United_Nations
I get that mentioning Israel is good for views but you were too fixed on only presenting the USA vetoing resolutions against Israel and not mentioned Russia vetoing resolutions against Iran, and Syria
@@RetractedandRedacted you're trying (though not very successfully) to equate Palestine with terrorism to delegitimise which is a part of Israeli propaganda strategy
1:32 "Now, the fact that Israel feels confident making these accusations". you're saying it like there's no truth in them and just carry on. the UN's human rights council keeps having states who openly violate human rights as members year after year
I agree with Israel here and still, if the UN had some relevence he wouldn't let countries to shame it in its councils Imagine what would happen if a MP in your'e county would accuse your government in supporting terrorism - regardless of the merit of the claims, there will be retaleation
Actually, he doesn't need to use his imagination. I'm guessing from his name he's Israeli, and Israeli opposition does in fact blame the PM of strengthening Hamas over the years. What will he do, call them traitors? He's does that anyway so there's nothing to lose.@@achiya6385
@@Macristo I very strongly, morally and ethically, disagree that the kind of racism black people face in the US is worse than the kind of misogyny women face in Iran.
The UN system has been broken ever since the PRC was admitted and ROC expelled back in 1971. Even as we speak today, the ROC on Taiwan; an independent democratic country, with a similar population size as Australia of 23.5 million human beings not represented in the UN and everyone else is ok with that says a lot about this broken organization.
Back when my country, Indonesia, was being attacked by the Netherlands in 1949, the UN was the one that actually pressured the Dutch to resign from their position in the East Indies (Indonesia's name during the colonial era). It's sad that almost a century later, the influence of the UN has declined so much.
At that time, Europe was weakened. The greatest powers, the Americans and Soviets can pressure them to gain international clout. In the Cold War, the two superpowers were simply replacing the European empires policies pre-WW2, and installed their dictators all over the worlds. The UN is an organization that do not stand for any national interests when dealing with state actors, but it did not have much enforcement capability to force the state actors to do what it want. It is heavily dependent on funding from the Superpowers, and if the superpowers national interest did not aligned with what is right, there is little it can do. Now, State actors found it easier to lobby in the Superpower governments instead. If the Netherlands now, want to attack Indonesia, all it have to do is lobbying the US Congress and EU paliament. Without the UN existed, the poorer and weaker countries will be in much deeper troubles.
I think its the US who pressured the Netherlands more. The Americans were funding the Dutch through Marshall Plan and they threaten to cut it if they didnt leave Indonesia
Africa realised this long ago after the Rwandan Genocide, There's a reason why soon after this Genocide the OAU was disbanded and the AU was formed, The AU hasn't largely replaced the UN in Africa but it has increasingly taken an active role and crucially most young Africans increasingly see the AU as a legitimate representative of the African people. The relative success of the mission in Somalia will only further strengthen the AUs position in Africa. A large part of the US global dominance is due to control of these institutions, institutions which it created but which it is now undermining, this will be probably a massive own goal
The US power comes from it's capacity of production and sea lanes peace keeping. If the UN didn't exist, it would still be the most influential country in the world.
@@arthurmiranda8896 No ,no army can hold the entire world together, don't be fooled...how does the US production capacity and navy ensure that two tribes in Africa don't finish each other off or Burkina Faso doesn't invade Guinea?
UN world security council may be as uselss as league of nations, but other orgs of UN like UNESCO and UNICEF have given massive contributions to humanity.
The league flopped because it did exactly what people are attacking the UN for not doing. The UN doesn't want to end up like the league so it doesn't try to enforce anything because it can't.
The UN allowed itself to become a rubber stamp to the country hosting it's main HQ. Hopefully BRICS will be far more pluralist and fairer, in the future
@Person11068Also because at the time USSR was the only non West aligned country in permanent security council so they wanted reassurance to not be kicked out of UN like they were from League Of Nations.
@@secretname4190 You're saying the US won't accept a system where it gets an equal vote to Tuvalu? BTW for the people who want to see this kumbaya approach to an international body - go look at how well FIFA use to work.
@Person11068that must be a joke because the powerful countries don’t even know how to do the right thing. It’s the powerful countries that are doing the worst things. The only reason why other countries accept the security council is because they are more powerful than the small Countries.
The UN was pretty much dead with Kosovo. Both in 99 when NATO illegally bombed Yugoslavia without a UN mandate and then in 2008 when Resolution 1244 was trampled upon and blatantly disregarded with the so-called ”independence“ of Kosovo.
Israel is confident making those accusations and didn't get much pushback because they're true, many UN employees in Gaza work for Hamas and helped cover up terrorism. What authority the UN had always came from being able to be perceived as neutral, and the UN has explicitly chosen to side with Hamas in this conflict.
Yes! It was revealed that Israeli hostages that ware kidnapped from their homes ware held by UN teachers! If I remember correctly one UN teacher is accused not only in holding a kidnapped person , but also in starving him
Terrible comparison between UN peace keeping budget and NYPD budget. UN peacekeepers are paid and funded by Their OWN national sates. Wages are paid by the contributor country, transport is paid by the contributor country, equipment is paid..you guessed it...
Giving a small group, who don’t like each other, the power to unilaterally veto anything has set itself up for failure. Democracies and authoritarian regimes don’t tend to get along.
Veto power is the only reason the UN hasn’t been disbanded. Otherwise it’d be ruled by the smallest and poorest nations whose votes are for sale to whichever country is willing to buy off their government. Granting each country equal representation is a silly thing if the largest countries can’t veto the smallest ones.
It's still a forum where all countries can meet. Many who call the UN impotent are the very same undermining it. Many others have unrealistic expectations of an organisation that was made intentionally week when it comes to enforcement. Powerful countries blatantly disregard global support for initiatives that go against their own interests and complain when others don't support theirs.
@@mdelcb9915 as I wrote it's weakness is mainly created by countries like China, Russia, and the USA. And foolish short sighted govts valuing expediency over long term gains
@@maxthexpfarmer3957 the world is far less than we would wish 😞 of course we don't have a similar world without UN to compare it's efficiency 😃 It's not like a double blind medical trail 😃
I think the answer as many have pointed out in the comments is that the vast majority of the public do not understand what the purpose of the UN actually is.
I understand it perfectly and I conclude that there is no other organisation in the world that is as useless and pointless as the UN. It costs, as usual, far too much tax-payer's money. And it's only used to give politicians, ex-politicians and diplomats a far too big income for doing, as usual, nothing at all.
The problem is that there are regular headlines of the UN not really understanding what the UN actually is either. I mean what is the human rights council even for if it's not a governing body?
@@mum2jka yeah, but is that the acomplishment uf the UN or the fact that we now have nukes and starting WW3 would litterally bomb us back into the dark ages? Also the increacing global interconnection of trade helps.
@@vyran7044 could be both of those things. But to dismiss the UN’s role since its inception would be a mistake. And to get rid of it would be an even worse mistake.
I believe that the UN since 2014 onwards has no credibility for its problems taking account of proper data in conflicts in Africa, and in Turkey, and right now with Russia. they should provide peace operations but sometimes they do the contrary , like covering how Turkey did treat Syrians refugees just because Turkey was a member at that time.
I feel like people forget what the un was set up in the shadows of its mission statement to start was to ensure another great power conflict does not happen most things come second to this cause no one wins a great power conflict
You seem to have a thing with Turkey. Syrians better go to Arab countries (as they are Arabs) or those American prostitutes (all EU countries) can welcome them.
Since 2003, I still remember the hit in prestige that the UN took when the US just ignored UN and started what everyone else knew was an illegal war. The UN pretty much died after 2003.
The UN was Irrelevant over 20 years age! As retired US military I've had the opportunity to work with the UN on several occasions. Rwanda, Macedonia/ Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and others in Africa. I can say that every time I have worked with the UN they were consistent! 1. wealthy highly educated stupide people where in charge. 2. Always seemed to be more worried about how to get more funding than anything else. 3. always indecisive, making a decision might, lose them their position, Money or might fix the problem and make the mission end so not making a decision was best! 4. Only way to get any work done or decisions made was to go to Friday night mixers (Drunk Fest) and wait till decision makers where drunk and have them sign paperwork to accomplish any thing. As a US soldier that has often worked with the UN, I have never seen them be successful. Just like Socialism/ Communism the UN is a great Idea on paper But fails in execution because of people's natural greed and lust for power!
Since 2015, the General Assembly has adopted 140 resolutions criticizing Israel, mainly over its treatment of the Palestinians, its relationships with neighboring countries and other alleged wrongdoings. Over the same period, it has passed 68 (!!!) resolutions against all other countries combined. No matter how you feel about Israel, it’s a tiny country with 0.1% of the world population, and obviously not the only country with human rights violations. The obsession of the bad actors in the UN with Israel is coming at the expense of other issues and is one of the main reasons of the declining of the UN reputation.
@@NameCannotBeBlank24then wtf is the point of the security council and why shouldn’t the worlds superpowers not have a say? It’ll require the efforts of one them to do whatever people want to do.
Johnathan irons from call of duty advancement warfare might say "The UN is the relic of its past where nations come together and solved the problems of world, now they outsource the problem to me!"
The UN mostly seems to have one function, criticizing Israel In a world of dictatorships and wars, apparently that’s the only thing the UN can think of to focus on
Yup. 2 million afghans being murdered and about to be kicked out of Pakistan. Not a single peep from them, let alone criticizing them as much Israel. the double standard is beyond ridiculous.
@@lolilollolilol7773 Actually US ops are way more effective than placing a bunch of blue helmet dummis in a chaotic region and explicitly tell them to do nothing. (south lebanon is a prime example) Atleast the US army can actually promote an agenda unlike the UN peacekeepers who just play 3rd world simulator for a salary.
They arn't. They are often lacking heavy equipment. At best they get unarmoured transports and a few APC's majority of the time. Whilst being in IED rich enviroments.
The UN could not condemn what happened in 7th October and ignoring violation of human rights around the world like in china or Saudia Arabia because of dictatorships control the human rights council so there is need for a massive reform
Reformed to what ? To kick out the people you don't like ? To a body with governing power ? It's either a United earth government or its current talking table reality, nothing in between will suffice.
I am sorry for your loss brother, we know the pain of losing parts of your homeland to invaders and then being told to stand down by the western world because "you must tolerate them"
Having more informed by the Palestinian and Israel war, I can say that UN has been irrelevant since 1949. They partition Israel and Palestine, but was nowhere to be seen when Palestinians rejected the partition and the Arabs attacked the Israel. In a local community, if a court gave you an order, it's jail time or at least there is a consequence when you disobey.
UN: "Israel must end military control of the Golan Heights and West Bank!" Also UN when Israel's neighbours invaded on 3 sides: "Uh.. sorry, you're on your own."
The settlements should be abolished, yes. But Israel's military presence there is the only thing stopping hostile neighbours from bisecting the country. And they absolutely would if given the chance. And the UN would do nothing to stop it.
You forgot to mention the UN 1701 resolution about Hezbollah not crossing into southern Lebanon. This resolution was mad in 2006 and was not kept. The UN did nothing to stop it from happening. The UN has no meaning if this organisation can not be upholding and policing its own resolution. And right now the country responsible for human rights is Iran. A country well known for its human rights abuses.
The reason for Israels harsh rethoric in the UN is a combination of simply having a far right nationalist government and the fact that the UN human rights council excludes Israel while keeping countries like Iran, North Korea, Somalia Etc inside which makes Israel ignore those resolutions as they just see it as hypocritical.
It's a forum where all countries can meet. Many who call the UN impotent are the very same undermining it. Many others have unrealistic expectations of an organisation that was made intentionally week when it comes to enforcement. Powerful countries blatantly disregard global support for initiatives that go against their own interests and complain when others don't support theirs.
It's still a forum where all countries can meet. Many who call the UN impotent are the very same undermining it. Many others have unrealistic expectations of an organisation that was made intentionally week when it comes to enforcement. Powerful countries blatantly disregard global support for initiatives that go against their own interests and complain when others don't support theirs.
It did some great things like helping with the hole in the ozone layer, but when it comes to most other topics it's as useless as a Nokia protection case
It's a bit strange to say that the UN's lack of relevance started with Iraq. I guess you guys forgot the Rwandan genocide, where the UN had boots on the ground, but did absolutely nothing to prevent the genocide.
I think the UN needs to better recognise its impotence. Constantly talking about or voting on Israel - Hamas cease-fires, was just pointing out that the UN can't do anything. While the countries that step forward as mediators are doing the work that the UN can do, allow dialogue between two parties
That's what you get when corruption. When you try to fund and include *every* opinion in the world into a debate, even if it's said by basically ISIS members, you get people not taking you seriously.
A big problem with the UN is that it's not consistent. It wavers on things like human rights atrocities in China, and can shrug off genocides in other regions when convenient. It takes stances, but there's no spine to any of it. I wish there was. I think the UN is a valuable thing. But without staying firm and consistent, and being able to back up their own words, the only word that can describe them is "impotent."
Exactly, they’re fueled by the wishes of the worst regimes in the world: Iran, Russia, China, North Korea among a few others. The cynical use of these disgusting and genocidal regimes is disgusting. It’s a corrupt and useless organization and should be defunded.
And it will never stay firm and consistent when all the big nations that have the actual power will have wildly different geopolitical interests. So they will ignore some situations where one or more of its members are clearly in the wrong but they will condemn others regardless on if the member is in the wrong or not compared to the other members.
It appears to be broken, but perhaps it should be totally revamped and restructured instead of eliminating the organization. It was created with the best of intentions and should be modernized to help it achieve those goals. Remove all permanent seats, remove all veto privileges, and institute equal financial membership fees for all participating countries. Make all members equal in every aspect.
Good idea in theory. But it wouldn’t take long for the rich countries (ie. USA) to start using bribery to get what it wants. And poorer countries would gladly take the money to better their people.
Have you ever read the Geneva Convention? Article 23 (in part) - The obligation of a High Contracting Party to allow the free passage of the consignments indicated in the preceding paragraph is subject to the condition that this Party is satisfied that there are no serious reasons for fearing: (a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination, (b) that the control may not be effective, or (c) that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy through the substitution of the above-mentioned consignments for goods which would otherwise be provided or produced by the enemy or through the release of such material, services or facilities as would otherwise be required for the production of such goods. The Power which allows the passage of the consignments indicated in the first paragraph of this Article may make permission conditional on the distribution to the persons benefited thereby being made under the local supervision of the Protecting Powers. Such consignments shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible, and the Power which permits their free passage shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements under which such passage is allowed.
@mum2jka True, humans are competitive by nature and tend to prefer getting their own way. Even though I can not provide any simple solution to this, I still believe that trying to create an improved system is better than declaring it impossible and hopeless.
The UN was dead since it was created, the permanent members for example and the ability to veto do not represent at all the values that the UN supposedly follows, Dictatorships with the power of veto after killing entire cities litearlly saying "Nuh uh." , the impossibility of reaching any resolution because countries with veto end up vetoing each other. The other countries have absolutely no power and are at the mercy of others... is laughable.
I completely reject the notion that the UN has failed, finding such framing overly simplistic. The UN operates in collaboration with 193 world governments; it was never intended to function as a world government. Its ability to act stems from agreements among national governments. If major powers like the US, China, and Russia do not agree, UN staff face limitations in undertaking significant actions. This is a feature, not a bug. The core issue lies in nationalism and the concept of state sovereignty driving these governments and their supporters. Failure to explore these factors hinders the resolution of why the UN may appear ineffective.
If the UN really cared about Gaza they would have sent some soldiers to show the IDF how they SHOULD combat hamas instead of condemning every option the IDF has to do.
Looking at what happen to the soldiers they sent to Golan Height. That works well last time. I mean condemning about IDF all the time then asking IDF for help when militant came really made them look good.
The UN spends all their time and money on Gaza already-seriously. Even if they had troops to spare and had permission to deploy them from Israel, the UN’s troops are notoriously impotent, guilty of local crimes, and a further drain on UN funds. No amount of UN focus on Gaza will change anything while it is run by Hamas-Hamas would just steal fuel from their vehicles and any weapons they had. And probably kidnap a few for good measure.
Its pretty pointless when the US can just decide what to do. If the entire rest of the UN wants them to lift the unlawful sanctions on Cuba, then there is nothing that they can do if the US says no.
I know someone who worded at the un in New York she said it never dose much as the big 5 USA, Russia,China,France,UK all keep voting it action, also I world like to add that most country’s have hard time given money to there own poor let allow poor of other country’s so I think lack of funding is real problems
The problem with the UN is it has no credibility and doesn't seem to have any serious intention of abiding by the values it espouses. When you have saudia arabia on the womens rights commission, Iran leading a human rights council and condemn Israel, the only jewish state, more than every other country combined despite there being obviously more egregious human rights violations and war crimes committed by and in other states, it becomes hard for anyone to take you seriously as an organization dedicated to human rights, world unity, equality or world peace.
@@Macristo having an embassy in a country is very different to giving them power to decide what is and isn't human rights abuse. The only reason Israel has the most resolutions against it is because it's a Jewish state NOT because it's the worst offender. And as that's the case, the HRC is clearly not fit for any purpose.
@@harlowida No one said it had immunity. We are saying the UN is full of sht about it, but, then again, so are you, so you will always refuse to see the point.
There is no other organisation in the world that is as useless and pointless as the UN (although the Belgian government and parliament come very close). It costs, as usual, far too much tax-payer's money. And it's only used to give politicians, ex-politicians and diplomats a far too big income for doing, as usual, nothing at all.
Should remake the UN. It has failed like the league of nations, but that's not a bad thing. We can make a new version, better and more suited for modern times. Though though, I would like to see humanity come together as one ppl. Would be nice if a UN like organization actually worked towards this. Make the UN more like a combination of NATO, EU, and UN. One organization.
In my lifetime I do not remember a time where anyone respected the UN as anything more than a bureaucratic entity. All the major world powers have shown this through action repeatedly.
I mean the fact that people still show up at the UN and people still talk about what happens shows that the UN is still functioning. It was never the world government, or the world police, or the world’s resolution. And as everyone knows negotiations always require willing parties. The UN is as strong and relevant as global diplomacy is.
I was a staunch supporter of the UN. As a child I even dreamed to work for them. Being from Latin America, and watching their lack of actions (or lack of effectiveness for a better word) during the start of the pandemic, during the Ukraine war, AND their shit show with the Hamas-Israel just left me wanting for just a new organism for communication between nations and maybe to mediate an issue but that is it. The un is worthless at this moment. And this is coming from a progressive. I don’t want to imagine what the conservatives are thinking
@@saifag6685 The problem is the Palestinians do not want peace and their leadership does not want democracy, the PLO and Hamas are corrupt groups who only care about their leaders stealing money and living a good life while their people suffer.
I want to remind people that during the Yugoslav wars. A Norwegian with a muscle car kitted out by the USA managed to do what the UN called impossible and abandoned. It should tell you how effective the UN is.
People treat the UN like it's a world government, but nothing could be further from the truth. UN resolutions are only suggestions unless major countries don't veto them. The only time it passed a powerful resolution was during the Korean War, and that's because the Soviet Union was boycotting it, so they couldn't veto it.
Yeah, there's a reasn I shit on the UN so much despite that.
This un did right thing but today it weak
@@SpartanJoe193The people who are part of the technical staff of the UN are some of the smartest, most ethical, hard-working and competent people in the world. But their organization is toothless and the political part can easily be used as an instrument of oppresion.
So the un should stay as a discord chat and nothing more..they imagine they have power..abd promic Change but they don't.
And the reason the USSR was boycotting it was that Taiwan (Republic of China) was recognised as the 1 true China, despite not being present on the mainland in any real capacity.
The UN is basically an international group chat, they can only suggest resolutions for any given conflict but cannot enforce them, especially since there are 5 countries with veto power and wildly different geopolitical interests.
Haha international group chat. But unfortunately this is true. No big country will agree on serious regulations about big issues like wars because as you said they have wildly different political interests. Plus each of the big countries will always play games to get the upper hand on the others.
And as long as one of the 5 can veto anything, then it will be hard to solve any problems. I am very much for the UN, but the veto options by lets say Russia or USA makes it very difficult to find a solution for some of the more pressing conflicts.
"Group chat" is probably the best description of the UNGA I have ever heard. Sadly it is completely spot-on!
Couldn't simply abolishing the UNSC veto go a long way towards revitalising the UN?
I know the big five won't want to give up their powers, but here the fact that the powers are split down the middle 3:2 on most geopolitical issues could mean that they could be persuaded to renounce the veto on the proviso that the "bad guys" did likewise.
Those 5 are basically the moderators of the group chat.
The UN’s weakness was showing way before the Iraq war, things like their failed operations in Rwanda, Somalia, and former Yugoslavia come to mind.
You're 100% correct; I was involved with all three of the countries that you mentioned as a soldier,.. but not as part of the DPKO.
What about the balken war of the 1990s when the UN whent in did stuff realized they needed air cover and called in Nato? Like was that war a perfect use of the UN in a conflict?
Crazy how the CIA were the ones that helped way more during turbulent times than the UN.
In Yugoslavia serbs were doing genocide. So that's the correct use of UN. But on other countries u r right
@@GreenBlueWalkthrough "Perfect" is not the word I'd use for that event.
"Has the UN ever been relevant?" should be the real question.
The biggest issue is that the security council's 5 permanent members are always the countries that have interests in foreign nations, and that are the most keen to veto any resolution against their interests. Giving them veto power is like letting a drunkard decide if his alcohol should be taken away.
They have veto power because they actually have the power to tell the un to bugger off
Problem is the funds.... Most of these unsc countries donate the most funds to the UN. And without money no organisation can get any job done.
The UN is just the table of negotiations. If the people around the table can't come to a collective decision and act accordingly, it's hardly the table's fault.
If the purpose of the table is to facilitate negotiation, but the table is incapable of performing that task, then why keep the table?
I use my table to hold food and stuff off the ground. If my food fell through the table every time I tried to use it, I would toss it out and build a more functional table.
The UN does not work.
Keeping it is dumb. The smart move is to replace it with something more functional.
When the League of Nations failed, nobody said "It's just a table". They said "It doesn't work, toss it out".
And we got the somewhat less useless UN. Which sorta worked for a while. Time for the next step.
@@pkz420because the table has worked more often than not. You don’t throw out your car when the radiator breaks, you try and fix the radiator. You don’t trash your car and just walk to work.
@@pkz420 how much world forum you want to demolish and build?
@@pkz420The problem lies with convincing those who have entrenched advantages (like the veto) to give them up in the broader interests of humanity. Everyone is playing the game for their own ends.
Waaaay too pompous for just a table.
the un is an organization for international diplomacy and cooperation, not a world government. if you expect the un to do something it's not meant to do, of course you will be disappointed.
There's no way to make a un like organization work if the superpowers and great powers aren't interested in cooperating (unless you give the un an army and a monopoly on nuclear weapons i guess, but i doubt that's the kind of world almost anyone wants to live in)
They give platform to dictatorships. And because there are so many dictatorships, democracies get silenced
It's meant to promote peace, and it's not doing that very well.
Flawed description. For the Perm. Veto countries its a Place to make decision and politics. For all others it is like you discribe. So please correct yourself, because the whole Design of un is bullshit.
@@maxthexpfarmer3957it’s actually not, it’s meant to promote human rights if anything. which it historically did a very good job at
UN always bias to its ‘funders’ & veto countries. It’s just hypocrisy organisation that imposed its values & agendas towards developing countries. If it’s truly trustworthy organisation, how come 1 vote from veto country can cancelled all votes from world nation?. Like a clown !mp3rial1sm joke ❤️
The UN being "deeply concerned" when a conflict happens is about as helpful as a fish having legs.
This is anti-mudskipper propaganda. 😉
🤔I disagree, a fish with legs would be more helpful. 😊
The world needs the U.N. like a fish needs a bicycle.
I disagree a fish with legs would be more helpful
Thats pretty sick tho not gonna lie
The UN became a joke when Saudi Arabia was given a seat on the Human Rights Council.
Saudi Arabia is much better than the US when it comes to human rights .
The UN constantly panders to illiberal and authoritarian regimes while lecturing liberal regimes and democratic ones. An immense sense of urgency for condemnation for the ones that follow rules but none for the ones that constantly break them. What can be expected of the coming irrelevance of the UN, we saw this with COVID too, in which WHO had no tact or urgency to demand China to just release info that everybody else does, then constantly babies it.
Yes! It’s the whitewashing laundry machine for China, Russia and Iran
You're so on point!
The single most potent reason for its growing irrelevance and frankly, as in this video, not really talked about
The UN lacks urgency. That's the problem in a nutshell. I was as opposed to the Iraq War as the next guy but I understand why it happened. 9/11 showed the world what happens when you get complacent and rely too heavily on diplomacy with an enemy that will not negotiate. Hussein was unwilling to engage with anyone and Bush clearly wasn't willing to gamble the idea that he might be stockpiling WMDs so soon after the terror attacks. At any other time I imagine there would have been more restraint but 9/11 put everyone into a state of such extreme fear and frustration it was always going to happen.
100% that’s why I as an American care little for it
“Truth is, the game was rigged from the start”
Fallout: League of Nations
After the League of Nations failed, the UN was reborn from the ashes of the outrage of Hitler genocide. It's only a fitting end for Israel to bring its downfall
War... War never changes
(insert nuclear weponary here)
Fallout predicts UN disblanded over a war between the European Commonwalth and the Middle East in 26 July 2052
UNa bunch of Underthe tablemoney
@@miguelcardoso1903 then turning on one another.
The security Council nations have always vetoed whatever they didn't feel like doing and just acted on their own multiple times, sometimes even against UN resolutions they didn't even bother to argue, the real question here is when has the UN ever been relevant?
The UN is heavily relevant. The UN helped create international shipping standards, languages for aviation, creating bodies to resolve trade disputes, etc, etc.
The problem with the UN is there is a great many people who are never taught what the role of the UN is and politicians take advantage of that drafting and supporting stupid resolutions they know will either not pass in order to rile up their own citizens or will pass but be entirely symbolic so their citizens will feel proud of whats been achieved.
The reality is if a resolution passes it's useless on its own, nothing the UN passes is binding they have no authority over member states. Unless a state ratifies a UN resolution through its own legal system it does not apply to them.
Although there are obvious exceptions, you can usually tell if a person knows nothing about the UN when they bring up "international law" and/or "it violates the UN" "the UN says" usually they are referring to some bullshit that simply does not matter in reality.
As a forum for talking
the problem with the permanent security council is that it is undemocratic and the members are not held liable for their actions. There's also the security council, which is bigger than the permanent security council, but they do not have veto power to abuse
I found myself asking the same question, but this video seems to answer that pretty clearly - the current phase of decline was in large part started by the Iraq war.
Which is to say it started before i was old enough to remember anything, so all I have ever known is an inept UN that no one pays any attention to.
How old are you, out of interest?
The idea of the UN is good and its a good humanitarian organization, but not the greatest peace maker. The way its designed in restricts itself. Veto is one, anything can just be halted if a veto member wants it. Soverign, nations don't like to be told what to do and if you cant enforce it then the rules might as well not apply. Also having nation which break human rights constantly on the human rights council is stupid.
I am a bit scared because we are seeing lots of parrallels with WW2. The League of Nations (the UN before the UN) had lots of conflicts and moments where countries just quit it or ignored it (Abysinnia, Manchuria, lots of civil wars and border issues) vs (Rwanda genocide, Bosnia-Serbia, Ukraine, Armenia, Israel-Palestine, Mynamr, South 'China' sea.
I hope WW3 doesn't come around, but I feel like we are one big economic/resource crisis or conflict away from the spark that starts the fire (1930's economic crash)
I think distrust for UN started even before Iraq invasion. NATO similarly ignored UN and bombed Serbia in 1999. Also UN completely failed to prevent Rwandan Genocide and they just stood by while 800 thousand people were slaughtered. In Serebrenica they even helped VRS to separate men and women,not to mention that UN "safe zones" in Bosnia and Croatia were completely useless. We could go even further than that...
Putins propaganda agent detected
@@shogun8379 What... Does any of what he said have to do with Russia?
NATO does not need approval from UN, and since it's preety useless, yea it can ignore it.
that's however, because of uselessness of UN, not because of NATO
You mean when NATO intervened in Serbia to stop ethnic cleansing? I am glad they ignored the UN for reasons you highlight with your Rwandan point.
I think people think that the UN is some kind of international diplomatic kumbya rather than a hotbed of politicking and international backstabbing rife with corruption.
@@eyalamit5120 Serbia wasnt just bombed, terrorists and murderers were eliminated there, as usually, like every Kremlin supported 5darasts, those were hiding behind civilians!
People often misinterpret the UN as a global government. At the same time, UNSC vetoes are what's hindering most progress.
UN: We need to talk about *insert conflict or humanitarian crisis here*
Major power causing said conflict/crisis: No we don't. (veto)
UN: Understandable, have a nice day.
This pretty much answers the question.
no that part of the UN is fine. its the democracy that is the problem. we let evil states have equal say with one vote to civilized western nations
In regards to geopolitical conflicts involving superpowers yes. However outside of that the UN does a lot of good. And I am not sure what people expect the UN to do. It's ultimately a forum not some powerful supernational world government.
Why does everyone at like it’s all simple, global geopolitics is far more complicated
@@MrVidman14it doesnt have to be black or white. Its very complicated when its about matters in small countries that have no real power, thats when UN can push its weight to actively solve the problem. But it becomes super simple when it comes to giant powers that hold veto privilege. When they say something everyone else shut ups, and they do whatever they want regardless of how the rest of the entire world feels, end of story.
The UN often presents itself as a world government and certain people treat it as such when it suits. However, it isn't a a governing body it is a forum for international co-operation despite what a bunch of career politicians and bureaucrats say.
How does the UN "Present itself" as a world government?
@@sino_diogenes I don't agree either regarding whether it presents itself as such or not. But I agree with other part, it's just a forum. A rather weakened one.
Every left wing anti capitalist wants the UN to be the world. Read what they write and listen to what they say.
No it f$£%ing doesn’t!
They have CESE every where even who....
Have you seen Dedro was Sooo delighted even so far as to bow to his Majesty LoL
Everybody says this every now and then because they are expecting the UN to do every impossible thing in the book like enforcing permanent world peace of becoming sort of a global government. Yet they keep doing their thing, slowly yet steady. Voting in the assembly tells us a lot about the state of geopolitics and the agencies do a lot of humanitarian work. It's far from perfect (we all know the Hunan Rights committe is a joke) but the discourse around it is sooo simplistic it's tiresome
No one would complain if the UN just sit still and did nothing, but UN is actively making the world worse.
Nah, the bigger point (and anxiety) is how the UN today is more and more mirroring the impotent League of Nations as that institution neared its end, and how that end of the League of Nations preceded WW2.
@@BoxStudioExecutive The UN is nowhere near the complete farce the League of Nations was.
@@BoxStudioExecutiveThe Leaque main issue was that the US wasn't involved despite the one to promote it.
No, the problem is if there's a resolution about to be done to a country or a conflict that contradicts with the 5 veto countries interest, they can veto it and affectively prevent it
League of Nations 2: Electric Boogaloo
The best way to describe UN relevancy: Iran is the head of UN human rights council 🤦
Same thing happened with the League of Nations. Its purpose is to be a place for diplomacy between members and thats it. If it does start acting like a government then we are in trouble
The UN is not objective and cannot be objective when it is basically a representation of the number of countries aligned with each of the world's major cultures. There are more than x100 times Muslims in the world as there are Jews and there are 50 Muslim majority countries while there is only one Jewish state, and the only people that feel directly invested in any Israel-Palestine situation is Israel itself, to an extent the US, and the numerous Muslim countries which are almost unanimously automatically aligned with the Palestinians regardless of the facts on the ground.
The UN proportionally gives voice to those numerous Muslim countries, and in turn the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council are an ironic joke. From UN Watch:
"From 2015 through 2022, the UN General Assembly has adopted 140 resolutions on Israel and 68 on other countries. For texts and voting sheets, see the UN Watch Database, which will include the 2022 UNGA resolutions after they are published by the UN in January 2023.
The UN Watch Database also documents that from 2006 through 2022, the UN Human Rights Council has adopted 99 resolutions against Israel, 41 against Syria, 13 against Iran, 4 against Russia, and 3 against Venezuela".
Another breakdown of 2022 resolutions:
"2022 UN General Assembly resolutions on:
🇰🇵 North Korea 1
🇦🇫 Afghanistan 1
🇻🇪 Venezuela 0
🇲🇲 Myanmar 1
🇱🇧 Lebanon 0
🇵🇰 Pakistan 0
Hamas 0
🇩🇿 Algeria 0
🇹🇷 Turkey 0
🇷🇺 Russia 6
🇨🇳 China 0
🇶🇦 Qatar 0
🇸🇦 Saudi 0
🇮🇱 Israel 15
🇨🇺 Cuba 0
🇸🇾 Syria 1
🇮🇶 Iraq 0
🇮🇷 Iran 1
🇺🇸 U.S. 1"
List of current members of the UNHRC (end of term in parenthesis):
Algeria(2025) Benin(2024) Cameroon(2024) Côte d’Ivoire(2023) Eritrea(2024) Gabon(2023) Gambia(2024) Malawi(2023) Morocco(2025) Senegal(2023) Somalia(2024) South Africa(2025) Sudan(2025)
Bangladesh(2025) China(2023) India(2024) Kazakhstan(2024) Kyrgyzstan(2025) Malaysia(2024) Maldives(2025) Nepal(2023) Pakistan(2023) Qatar(2024) United Arab Emirates(2024) Uzbekistan(2023) Vietnam(2025)
Czechia(2023) Georgia(2025) Lithuania(2024) Montenegro(2024) Romania(2025) Ukraine(2023)
Argentina(2024) Bolivia (Plurinational State of)(2023) Chile(2025) Costa Rica(2025) Cuba(2023) Honduras(2024) Mexico(2023) Paraguay(2024)
Belgium(2025) Finland(2024) France(2023) Germany(2025) Luxembourg(2024) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland(2023) United States of America(2024)
It almost sounds like they aren’t what they say they are
The United Nations is a joke
You could replace the UN with a Discord channel that each country's foreign affairs department has access to and would literally not be able to tell the difference.
The UN physically exists primarily to spruik business class seats on international flights for their well heeled staffers.
Exactly what I say!
Did you ever search how much UN contributed to public health, education, eradication of poverty, conflict resolution etc? It is not irrelevant institution.
Tbh if it was a discord channel, then it would have been more efficient
@@IndiaTides Last time I checked, you can have a meeting about public health over Zoom.
Why do you need Stubbs McGee, a silverspooner from the capital of Ivorytoweria, to get $15k flights to New York, paid with taxpayer dollars, just to be late to the UN meeting anyways because he was enjoying putting his $200/day meal allowance to use at a Fifth Avenue cafe? It's not like he and his compatriots will do any real work anyways since all the real work on the ground is going to be outsourced to contractors or national governments.
There is nothing that the UN does that can't be replaced by internet forums and online meetings which in its entirety cost less than $100/month in server capacity.
!mute brown people
No. It begun with NATO attacking Yugoslavia without approval from UN.
Iran is the head chair of the UN human rights council. This organization would've been a joke if it wasn't so sad
The UN is like the holiday Festivus. The airing of grievances is about all that is accomplished.
UN is much more than representatives sitting in an auditorium insulting each other: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_specialized_agencies_of_the_United_Nations
Shrug. It's not much but it's not nothing.
Don't forget the Feats of Strength in the Security Council.
I get that mentioning Israel is good for views but you were too fixed on only presenting the USA vetoing resolutions against Israel and not mentioned Russia vetoing resolutions against Iran, and Syria
Hamas doesn't have a seat in the UN
@@user-op8fg3ny3jhe didn’t say anything about Hamas because Hamas is a governmental body (terrorist organization) within the Palestinian Territories
@@user-op8fg3ny3j Neither does ISIS, Al Qaeda or Boko haram. Whats the issue?
@@RetractedandRedacted you're trying (though not very successfully) to equate Palestine with terrorism to delegitimise which is a part of Israeli propaganda strategy
@@harlowida selective truth. Ever heard of it? Saying the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Muslim, is also true but a selective truth
1:32 "Now, the fact that Israel feels confident making these accusations". you're saying it like there's no truth in them and just carry on. the UN's human rights council keeps having states who openly violate human rights as members year after year
I agree with Israel here and still, if the UN had some relevence he wouldn't let countries to shame it in its councils
Imagine what would happen if a MP in your'e county would accuse your government in supporting terrorism - regardless of the merit of the claims, there will be retaleation
The council right now is lead by Iran, and we all know what staff they are doing with their people.
Actually, he doesn't need to use his imagination. I'm guessing from his name he's Israeli, and Israeli opposition does in fact blame the PM of strengthening Hamas over the years. What will he do, call them traitors? He's does that anyway so there's nothing to lose.@@achiya6385
@@MacristoThere's a huge different between hush-hush human rights violations in the West and Iran openly killing young women for showing their hair.
@@Macristo I very strongly, morally and ethically, disagree that the kind of racism black people face in the US is worse than the kind of misogyny women face in Iran.
Of course Israel is mad at the UN just look at how many resolutions targeted Israel and compare it to all of the conflicts around the world
Just look at the illegal settlement continuous ethnic cleansing from what from inception was designed as a settler colonialist state
The UN system has been broken ever since the PRC was admitted and ROC expelled back in 1971.
Even as we speak today, the ROC on Taiwan; an independent democratic country, with a similar population size as Australia of 23.5 million human beings not represented in the UN and everyone else is ok with that says a lot about this broken organization.
Back when my country, Indonesia, was being attacked by the Netherlands in 1949, the UN was the one that actually pressured the Dutch to resign from their position in the East Indies (Indonesia's name during the colonial era). It's sad that almost a century later, the influence of the UN has declined so much.
At that time, Europe was weakened. The greatest powers, the Americans and Soviets can pressure them to gain international clout. In the Cold War, the two superpowers were simply replacing the European empires policies pre-WW2, and installed their dictators all over the worlds. The UN is an organization that do not stand for any national interests when dealing with state actors, but it did not have much enforcement capability to force the state actors to do what it want. It is heavily dependent on funding from the Superpowers, and if the superpowers national interest did not aligned with what is right, there is little it can do.
Now, State actors found it easier to lobby in the Superpower governments instead. If the Netherlands now, want to attack Indonesia, all it have to do is lobbying the US Congress and EU paliament. Without the UN existed, the poorer and weaker countries will be in much deeper troubles.
I think its the US who pressured the Netherlands more. The Americans were funding the Dutch through Marshall Plan and they threaten to cut it if they didnt leave Indonesia
Africa realised this long ago after the Rwandan Genocide,
There's a reason why soon after this Genocide the OAU was disbanded and the AU was formed,
The AU hasn't largely replaced the UN in Africa but it has increasingly taken an active role and crucially most young Africans increasingly see the AU as a legitimate representative of the African people.
The relative success of the mission in Somalia will only further strengthen the AUs position in Africa.
A large part of the US global dominance is due to control of these institutions, institutions which it created but which it is now undermining, this will be probably a massive own goal
Small round objects.
Hey African Unions mission in Somalia was a complete failor just people taking a check without doing much. Good its going away soon
The US power comes from it's capacity of production and sea lanes peace keeping. If the UN didn't exist, it would still be the most influential country in the world.
@@arthurmiranda8896 No ,no army can hold the entire world together, don't be fooled...how does the US production capacity and navy ensure that two tribes in Africa don't finish each other off or Burkina Faso doesn't invade Guinea?
@cracxy7220 the danger for heavy weapons falling into the wrong hands is too great
The only credit I think that the UN really deserves is that it lasted longer than the League of Nations, but was just as effective.
UN world security council may be as uselss as league of nations, but other orgs of UN like UNESCO and UNICEF have given massive contributions to humanity.
The league flopped because it did exactly what people are attacking the UN for not doing. The UN doesn't want to end up like the league so it doesn't try to enforce anything because it can't.
@@reubennelson4086UN has become a safe house for islamic terrorists & give them a platform to spread their ideology
Some un department more functional than other
The UN allowed itself to become a rubber stamp to the country hosting it's main HQ.
Hopefully BRICS will be far more pluralist and fairer, in the future
To solve one major issue is to disassemble the permanent security council.
And that includes UK, France, Russia, USA and China.
They'd just defy things they don't like. The US already doesn't pay all its UN dues.
If they did the UN would actually just become more impotenr because powerful countries would pay even less attention to it.
@Person11068Also because at the time USSR was the only non West aligned country in permanent security council so they wanted reassurance to not be kicked out of UN like they were from League Of Nations.
@@secretname4190 You're saying the US won't accept a system where it gets an equal vote to Tuvalu?
BTW for the people who want to see this kumbaya approach to an international body - go look at how well FIFA use to work.
@Person11068that must be a joke because the powerful countries don’t even know how to do the right thing. It’s the powerful countries that are doing the worst things. The only reason why other countries accept the security council is because they are more powerful than the small
Countries.
The UN was pretty much dead with Kosovo. Both in 99 when NATO illegally bombed Yugoslavia without a UN mandate and then in 2008 when Resolution 1244 was trampled upon and blatantly disregarded with the so-called ”independence“ of Kosovo.
Israel is confident making those accusations and didn't get much pushback because they're true, many UN employees in Gaza work for Hamas and helped cover up terrorism. What authority the UN had always came from being able to be perceived as neutral, and the UN has explicitly chosen to side with Hamas in this conflict.
Yes! It was revealed that Israeli hostages that ware kidnapped from their homes ware held by UN teachers!
If I remember correctly one UN teacher is accused not only in holding a kidnapped person , but also in starving him
This makes me like the UN even more
Terrible comparison between UN peace keeping budget and NYPD budget. UN peacekeepers are paid and funded by Their OWN national sates. Wages are paid by the contributor country, transport is paid by the contributor country, equipment is paid..you guessed it...
Giving a small group, who don’t like each other, the power to unilaterally veto anything has set itself up for failure. Democracies and authoritarian regimes don’t tend to get along.
Veto power is irrelevant anyway because the UN isn't an actual government and has no sovereignty over any nation.
Veto power is the only reason the UN hasn’t been disbanded. Otherwise it’d be ruled by the smallest and poorest nations whose votes are for sale to whichever country is willing to buy off their government. Granting each country equal representation is a silly thing if the largest countries can’t veto the smallest ones.
It's still a forum where all countries can meet. Many who call the UN impotent are the very same undermining it. Many others have unrealistic expectations of an organisation that was made intentionally week when it comes to enforcement. Powerful countries blatantly disregard global support for initiatives that go against their own interests and complain when others don't support theirs.
It's useless and corrupt
They give platform to dictatorships
@@mdelcb9915 as I wrote it's weakness is mainly created by countries like China, Russia, and the USA. And foolish short sighted govts valuing expediency over long term gains
It was created to promote peace, and it's clearly not doing that very well. I wouldn't go so far as to call it impotent, but it is definitely weak.
@@maxthexpfarmer3957 the world is far less than we would wish 😞 of course we don't have a similar world without UN to compare it's efficiency 😃 It's not like a double blind medical trail 😃
I think the answer as many have pointed out in the comments is that the vast majority of the public do not understand what the purpose of the UN actually is.
I understand it perfectly and I conclude that there is no other organisation in the world that is as useless and pointless as the UN. It costs, as usual, far too much tax-payer's money. And it's only used to give politicians, ex-politicians and diplomats a far too big income for doing, as usual, nothing at all.
The problem is that there are regular headlines of the UN not really understanding what the UN actually is either. I mean what is the human rights council even for if it's not a governing body?
@@dojelnotmyrealname4018UN themselves don't really understand UN lol
Because it serves literally little or no purpose, and you haven't managed to define one either.
The UN is basically the equivalent to a global Homeowners association
No, not even. If I break HOA rules, they have legal recourse to punish me
HOA’s are far more powerful.
@@brahimdiop5506only because they are backed by a government
It was created after WW2, so it might become relevant after WW3, which was what the UN was created to avoid 😢
Same as the League of Nations mattered in 1919-1922.
But it doesn't take long after wars for us to forget why organizations like this need to exist.
UN is a diplomatic organization and any concerned for world order, not a world government that has the power to stop any conflict.
And so far it has been successful. The world may feel in a mess right now but it has avoided a world war for 70 years.
@@mum2jka yeah, but is that the acomplishment uf the UN or the fact that we now have nukes and starting WW3 would litterally bomb us back into the dark ages?
Also the increacing global interconnection of trade helps.
@@vyran7044 could be both of those things. But to dismiss the UN’s role since its inception would be a mistake. And to get rid of it would be an even worse mistake.
Why would Israel face repercussions for saying the truth?
I believe that the UN since 2014 onwards has no credibility for its problems taking account of proper data in conflicts in Africa, and in Turkey, and right now with Russia. they should provide peace operations but sometimes they do the contrary , like covering how Turkey did treat Syrians refugees just because Turkey was a member at that time.
I feel like people forget what the un was set up in the shadows of its mission statement to start was to ensure another great power conflict does not happen most things come second to this cause no one wins a great power conflict
You seem to have a thing with Turkey. Syrians better go to Arab countries (as they are Arabs) or those American prostitutes (all EU countries) can welcome them.
It's been shit loooong before 2014.
How does Turkey treat Syrian refugees?
Since 2003, I still remember the hit in prestige that the UN took when the US just ignored UN and started what everyone else knew was an illegal war. The UN pretty much died after 2003.
The UN was Irrelevant over 20 years age! As retired US military I've had the opportunity to work with the UN on several occasions. Rwanda, Macedonia/ Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and others in Africa. I can say that every time I have worked with the UN they were consistent! 1. wealthy highly educated stupide people where in charge. 2. Always seemed to be more worried about how to get more funding than anything else. 3. always indecisive, making a decision might, lose them their position, Money or might fix the problem and make the mission end so not making a decision was best! 4. Only way to get any work done or decisions made was to go to Friday night mixers (Drunk Fest) and wait till decision makers where drunk and have them sign paperwork to accomplish any thing. As a US soldier that has often worked with the UN, I have never seen them be successful. Just like Socialism/ Communism the UN is a great Idea on paper But fails in execution because of people's natural greed and lust for power!
Since 2015, the General Assembly has adopted 140 resolutions criticizing Israel, mainly over its treatment of the Palestinians, its relationships with neighboring countries and other alleged wrongdoings. Over the same period, it has passed 68 (!!!) resolutions against all other countries combined.
No matter how you feel about Israel, it’s a tiny country with 0.1% of the world population, and obviously not the only country with human rights violations.
The obsession of the bad actors in the UN with Israel is coming at the expense of other issues and is one of the main reasons of the declining of the UN reputation.
And yet this video didn’t mention this at all. Another reason the UN is falling apart-failure to recognize its own shortcomings.
We need more UN permanent members and instead of one country vetoing it should be two countries or a majority.
remove the veto power.
@@NameCannotBeBlank24then wtf is the point of the security council and why shouldn’t the worlds superpowers not have a say? It’ll require the efforts of one them to do whatever people want to do.
@@NameCannotBeBlank24 UN was possible because of veto, and countries China can influence small nation to do their bedding if veto is removed.
Then the UK or France will always second America's ones. Russia's vetos needing to be backed by China could be very interesting though.
we need to remove all UN permanent member badges and treat all members as equal
As Sir Appleby commented once: "the UN is the accepted forum for international hatred" (yes prime minister)😂
When was the UN ever even relevant
The First 5 minute It existed, then the USSR realized It was in the most important part of it
Like twice.. Korea and desert storm.
Guess who was missing....
Johnathan irons from call of duty advancement warfare might say "The UN is the relic of its past where nations come together and solved the problems of world, now they outsource the problem to me!"
The UN mostly seems to have one function, criticizing Israel
In a world of dictatorships and wars, apparently that’s the only thing the UN can think of to focus on
"Yeah , Iran is hanging children , Russia invaded Ukraine but how dare you retaliate against terrorists who want to wipe out all Jews in Israel!"
Yup. 2 million afghans being murdered and about to be kicked out of Pakistan. Not a single peep from them, let alone criticizing them as much Israel. the double standard is beyond ridiculous.
It's like the league of nations all over again
"UN peacekeepers were rather successful"
lol, this might be the biggest lie I've heard all year.
Successful in trading money and goods for sex on the local starving population.
Yea that one raised my eyebrows too. UN peacekeepers are hardly better than occupying armies.
He probably meant "compared to US military operations".
@@lolilollolilol7773 Actually US ops are way more effective than placing a bunch of blue helmet dummis in a chaotic region and explicitly tell them to do nothing. (south lebanon is a prime example)
Atleast the US army can actually promote an agenda unlike the UN peacekeepers who just play 3rd world simulator for a salary.
They arn't.
They are often lacking heavy equipment.
At best they get unarmoured transports and a few APC's majority of the time.
Whilst being in IED rich enviroments.
No. On the count of the fact it never was relevant to begin with.
👍
Get rid of the UN.
Appearing useless yes, decline no. It has always been this way, even with the precursor in the league of nations.
The UN could not condemn what happened in 7th October and ignoring violation of human rights around the world like in china or Saudia Arabia because of dictatorships control the human rights council so there is need for a massive reform
Unless UN is reformed, i dont think there is any reason for its existence
Reformed to what ? To kick out the people you don't like ? To a body with governing power ? It's either a United earth government or its current talking table reality, nothing in between will suffice.
As a Cypriot, I can tell you that the UN has been on the wrong side of things...
I am sorry for your loss brother, we know the pain of losing parts of your homeland to invaders and then being told to stand down by the western world because "you must tolerate them"
@@asafnivvnkfhoimagine living in the most diverse region on earth, and only wanting to kill your neighbors 😂😂
I'm usually one of the more vocal critics to Turkey but Greece was entirely at fault instigating the coup.
UN used to have teeth back when Scandinavians were Secretary Generals.
Having more informed by the Palestinian and Israel war, I can say that UN has been irrelevant since 1949.
They partition Israel and Palestine, but was nowhere to be seen when Palestinians rejected the partition and the Arabs attacked the Israel. In a local community, if a court gave you an order, it's jail time or at least there is a consequence when you disobey.
UN: "Israel must end military control of the Golan Heights and West Bank!"
Also UN when Israel's neighbours invaded on 3 sides: "Uh.. sorry, you're on your own."
You know the 6 day war was an offensive war right
@@AbduletifMuhidinhe talk about 1948 not 1967 read a book
@@achiya6385So the 1948 Arab - Israeli war is an excuse for to illegally occupy Palestinians territories in 2023? What a shit excuse.
The settlements should be abolished, yes. But Israel's military presence there is the only thing stopping hostile neighbours from bisecting the country. And they absolutely would if given the chance.
And the UN would do nothing to stop it.
UN just sits back an watches...
Just look at the lebanon border like RIGHT FUCKING NOW.
Theres supposedly UN stationed there they doing anything? no.
World War 2 happened when League of Nation failed.
World War 3 similar pattern.
You forgot to mention the UN 1701 resolution about Hezbollah not crossing into southern Lebanon. This resolution was mad in 2006 and was not kept. The UN did nothing to stop it from happening. The UN has no meaning if this organisation can not be upholding and policing its own resolution. And right now the country responsible for human rights is Iran. A country well known for its human rights abuses.
The reason for Israels harsh rethoric in the UN is a combination of simply having a far right nationalist government and the fact that the UN human rights council excludes Israel while keeping countries like Iran, North Korea, Somalia Etc inside which makes Israel ignore those resolutions as they just see it as hypocritical.
it feels exactly like the league of nations before failing after not taking any meaningful actions
The real question is, has the UN ever been relevant?
It's a forum where all countries can meet. Many who call the UN impotent are the very same undermining it. Many others have unrealistic expectations of an organisation that was made intentionally week when it comes to enforcement. Powerful countries blatantly disregard global support for initiatives that go against their own interests and complain when others don't support theirs.
The better question is, has the UN ever been relevant?
It's still a forum where all countries can meet. Many who call the UN impotent are the very same undermining it. Many others have unrealistic expectations of an organisation that was made intentionally week when it comes to enforcement. Powerful countries blatantly disregard global support for initiatives that go against their own interests and complain when others don't support theirs.
It did some great things like helping with the hole in the ozone layer, but when it comes to most other topics it's as useless as a Nokia protection case
To keep it simple: no, absolutely not.
@@lolilollolilol7773 it should be undermined. it isn't a forum. it has committees and counsils. meaning it pushes an agenda , it is not neutral
Not since the Korean War.
It's a bit strange to say that the UN's lack of relevance started with Iraq. I guess you guys forgot the Rwandan genocide, where the UN had boots on the ground, but did absolutely nothing to prevent the genocide.
there has never been a successsful peace keeping mission, if you don't withdraw the troops you can't say the peaccekeeping was successful
I think the UN needs to better recognise its impotence. Constantly talking about or voting on Israel - Hamas cease-fires, was just pointing out that the UN can't do anything. While the countries that step forward as mediators are doing the work that the UN can do, allow dialogue between two parties
Maybe it's because I wasn't paying attention, but you mentioned you'd discuss something about how reform could fix it but I didn't see any of that?
The UN is more and more looking like the League of Nations.
That's what you get when corruption.
When you try to fund and include *every* opinion in the world into a debate, even if it's said by basically ISIS members, you get people not taking you seriously.
i.e. The tolerance of intolerance paradox
I’m curious about the isis saying thing
@@Macristoboohoo, terrorists can bicker amongs themselves. They dont need a voice in the UN.
@@muhammadyaseer9673He probably means Saudi Arabia😂
A big problem with the UN is that it's not consistent. It wavers on things like human rights atrocities in China, and can shrug off genocides in other regions when convenient. It takes stances, but there's no spine to any of it. I wish there was. I think the UN is a valuable thing. But without staying firm and consistent, and being able to back up their own words, the only word that can describe them is "impotent."
UN was always garbage.
ever since UN accepted USSR and China to join in, that was the moment everything fell apart.
Exactly, they’re fueled by the wishes of the worst regimes in the world: Iran, Russia, China, North Korea among a few others. The cynical use of these disgusting and genocidal regimes is disgusting. It’s a corrupt and useless organization and should be defunded.
And it will never stay firm and consistent when all the big nations that have the actual power will have wildly different geopolitical interests. So they will ignore some situations where one or more of its members are clearly in the wrong but they will condemn others regardless on if the member is in the wrong or not compared to the other members.
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Yes, been so for a while.
It appears to be broken, but perhaps it should be totally revamped and restructured instead of eliminating the organization. It was created with the best of intentions and should be modernized to help it achieve those goals. Remove all permanent seats, remove all veto privileges, and institute equal financial membership fees for all participating countries. Make all members equal in every aspect.
Good idea in theory. But it wouldn’t take long for the rich countries (ie. USA) to start using bribery to get what it wants. And poorer countries would gladly take the money to better their people.
Have you ever read the Geneva Convention?
Article 23 (in part) - The obligation of a High Contracting Party to allow the free passage of the consignments indicated in the preceding paragraph is subject to the condition that this Party is satisfied that there are no serious reasons for fearing:
(a) that the consignments may be diverted from their destination,
(b) that the control may not be effective, or
(c) that a definite advantage may accrue to the military efforts or economy of the enemy through the substitution of the above-mentioned consignments for goods which would otherwise be provided or produced by the enemy or through the release of such material, services or facilities as would otherwise be required for the production of such goods.
The Power which allows the passage of the consignments indicated in the first paragraph of this Article may make permission conditional on the distribution to the persons benefited thereby being made under the local supervision of the Protecting Powers.
Such consignments shall be forwarded as rapidly as possible, and the Power which permits their free passage shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements under which such passage is allowed.
@@mum2jkaso u re basically saying that a country like nauru should hace the same power like usa
@@idkmyname2352 Er, wasn’t me who suggested it…
@mum2jka True, humans are competitive by nature and tend to prefer getting their own way. Even though I can not provide any simple solution to this, I still believe that trying to create an improved system is better than declaring it impossible and hopeless.
UN Human Rights Council included Russia. And in the past was Chaired by Libya under Gaddafi
And then you wonder why it has a “Relevance” Problem
The UN was dead since it was created, the permanent members for example and the ability to veto do not represent at all the values that the UN supposedly follows, Dictatorships with the power of veto after killing entire cities litearlly saying "Nuh uh." , the impossibility of reaching any resolution because countries with veto end up vetoing each other.
The other countries have absolutely no power and are at the mercy of others... is laughable.
How can something become irrelevant when it was ALWAYS irrelevant?
IT ALWAYS WAS IRRELEVANT
I completely reject the notion that the UN has failed, finding such framing overly simplistic. The UN operates in collaboration with 193 world governments; it was never intended to function as a world government. Its ability to act stems from agreements among national governments. If major powers like the US, China, and Russia do not agree, UN staff face limitations in undertaking significant actions. This is a feature, not a bug. The core issue lies in nationalism and the concept of state sovereignty driving these governments and their supporters. Failure to explore these factors hinders the resolution of why the UN may appear ineffective.
Finally a person who understands, the rest of the comment section have been so far dissapointing.
Thank you for telling it how it is.
Real question: Was it ever?
If i had a shilling every time the UN did something useful i'd have 2 shillings.
Which isn't alot but it's weird it's happened twice.
If the UN really cared about Gaza they would have sent some soldiers to show the IDF how they SHOULD combat hamas instead of condemning every option the IDF has to do.
Looking at what happen to the soldiers they sent to Golan Height. That works well last time. I mean condemning about IDF all the time then asking IDF for help when militant came really made them look good.
The UN spends all their time and money on Gaza already-seriously. Even if they had troops to spare and had permission to deploy them from Israel, the UN’s troops are notoriously impotent, guilty of local crimes, and a further drain on UN funds. No amount of UN focus on Gaza will change anything while it is run by Hamas-Hamas would just steal fuel from their vehicles and any weapons they had. And probably kidnap a few for good measure.
Oh, it'd be LOVELY is people put their own skin in the game instead of whining when Israel defends itself the only way it can.
Like in Libanon when the Israelis killed Irish blue helmets?
Its pretty pointless when the US can just decide what to do. If the entire rest of the UN wants them to lift the unlawful sanctions on Cuba, then there is nothing that they can do if the US says no.
I know someone who worded at the un in New York she said it never dose much as the big 5 USA, Russia,China,France,UK all keep voting it action, also I world like to add that most country’s have hard time given money to there own poor let allow poor of other country’s so I think lack of funding is real problems
The problem with the UN is it has no credibility and doesn't seem to have any serious intention of abiding by the values it espouses. When you have saudia arabia on the womens rights commission, Iran leading a human rights council and condemn Israel, the only jewish state, more than every other country combined despite there being obviously more egregious human rights violations and war crimes committed by and in other states, it becomes hard for anyone to take you seriously as an organization dedicated to human rights, world unity, equality or world peace.
@@Macristo having an embassy in a country is very different to giving them power to decide what is and isn't human rights abuse. The only reason Israel has the most resolutions against it is because it's a Jewish state NOT because it's the worst offender. And as that's the case, the HRC is clearly not fit for any purpose.
@@harlowida No one said it had immunity. We are saying the UN is full of sht about it, but, then again, so are you, so you will always refuse to see the point.
I wonder what predecessor of the UN had also strived for global cooperation... and failed spectacularly.
There is no other organisation in the world that is as useless and pointless as the UN (although the Belgian government and parliament come very close). It costs, as usual, far too much tax-payer's money. And it's only used to give politicians, ex-politicians and diplomats a far too big income for doing, as usual, nothing at all.
The League of Nations . . .
Humans Rights, remember it was a thing
The only law that has always governed international relationships is the law of the stronger side.
Hence why we should have a look at other alternatives like world federalism
Sad state of the world if the majority has a positive view of the UN.
The un officialy died the day the considered telling us americans to eat less meat. Who tf do you think you are telling me to eat less meat...
Should remake the UN. It has failed like the league of nations, but that's not a bad thing.
We can make a new version, better and more suited for modern times.
Though though, I would like to see humanity come together as one ppl. Would be nice if a UN like organization actually worked towards this.
Make the UN more like a combination of NATO, EU, and UN. One organization.
No countries want a world government
The problem is that the UN has no teeth. So what if they tell you not to do something. What’s the worse that will happen?
You will be denounced in very strong terms, and maybe not even invited to future parties.
In my lifetime I do not remember a time where anyone respected the UN as anything more than a bureaucratic entity. All the major world powers have shown this through action repeatedly.
I mean the fact that people still show up at the UN and people still talk about what happens shows that the UN is still functioning. It was never the world government, or the world police, or the world’s resolution. And as everyone knows negotiations always require willing parties.
The UN is as strong and relevant as global diplomacy is.
False promises and expectations often cause more harm than if the UN was just honest about it's limitations.
It’s about as useful as the League of Nations at this point.
I was a staunch supporter of the UN. As a child I even dreamed to work for them. Being from Latin America, and watching their lack of actions (or lack of effectiveness for a better word) during the start of the pandemic, during the Ukraine war, AND their shit show with the Hamas-Israel just left me wanting for just a new organism for communication between nations and maybe to mediate an issue but that is it. The un is worthless at this moment. And this is coming from a progressive. I don’t want to imagine what the conservatives are thinking
It’s just a big global lunch meeting.
the UN has also shown its bias in the israel conflict by not demanding hamas return hostages and not condemning hamas attacking civilians
They condemned the attack and demanded hostage return.
The problem is with israel who do not want to cooperate and do whatever they want.
@@saifag6685 The problem is the Palestinians do not want peace and their leadership does not want democracy, the PLO and Hamas are corrupt groups who only care about their leaders stealing money and living a good life while their people suffer.
@@harlowida Thanks for proving exactly why the UN has failed. There is no reason to sanction israel.
@@saifag6685 Do what? Let HAMAS massacre more people?
The veto powers render the whole thing useless. Because you just have to be one of the five or a friend of one of the five
I want to remind people that during the Yugoslav wars. A Norwegian with a muscle car kitted out by the USA managed to do what the UN called impossible and abandoned.
It should tell you how effective the UN is.
I think the vetos are a huge problem