- Eradicate extreme Poverty and Hunger
- Achieve universal Primary Education
- Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women
- Reduce Child Mortality Rate
- Improve Maternal Health
- Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and other Diseases
- Ensure Environmental Sustainability
- Develop a Global Partnership for Development
Why are these diplomats coming together in New York to discuss such things? New York just so happens to be the headquarters of the United Nations.
The United Nations was formed in 1945 after World War II in order to replace the League of Nations and address international conflicts to bring about peaceful resolutions. The organization has grown since 1945 to encompass nearly every sovereign state in the world. There has also been a growth in the understanding that in order to truly confront future conflicts, basic human needs ought to be met all over the world. The UN has many programs to address these needs including the World Food Program, the UN Children's Fund, the World Health Organization, and many others.
In addressing thse Millennium Development Goals, the UN has set the bar high, and has made substantial progress towards accomplishing these ends. Unfortunatly, they are still largely falling short of attaining all aspects of their aspirations.
This is due largely to a lack of support for the United Nations. Within the United States, there have been growing sentiments over the past few decades that the UN is not an organization that is fit for the challenge of leading the world. The perspective from the United States is that as the global superpower, we ought to dominate global politics, and to that end, we largely do. The UN has made several concessions including allowing China's continued presence on the Security Council, that has confronted the U.S. view as what is conducive to progressive geo-political advancement.
The UN, as an international peace seeking organization, does not have the political or economic agenda that the sovereign states do. The UN is not interested in advocating against the U.S. on the principle that it just wants to advocate against the U.S. It is instead interested in advocting for all citizens of the world. If our interests conflisct with the interests of the UN, maybe we should take a step back and consider why that may be the case.
Ideally, I believe that in order to progress towards a more unified Humanity, all countries need to yield more of their power and decisions to align with the United Nations. In this way, all peoples from all backgrounds can have a voice represented more fairly on a global platform.
That being said, it will take not only an effort of submission from the United States, but more of a submission and contribution by the rest of the world (based on the understanding that the UN will not simply be another branch of US political control). Currently, the U.S. supports 22% of the UN budget and bears most of the economic burden in fulfilling UN goals. If the rest of the world would like to see the UN's growth and presence, why not contribute more? Certainly the U.S. might have more financial resources than most, but China, the UK, Russia, and other great powers could easily help to contribute to the budget of the UN.
I believe that the United Nations is the direction that this world needs to be headed towards. When we set aside national identities and interest and trust that there is an overarching organization involved in assuring that ALL interest in ALL of the world are being met, we can unify as a human race. I belive that the United Nations and its drive to meet basic needs to prevent conflicts to benefit all citizens of the world is a great symbol of hope. A symbol for peace.
I agree with you on the last paragraph that the UN is a great step to where the world should be heading. I think they set good goals for every one to work towards. However I don’t think that China is really a great power or at a great place to give more money at least not as much as we do, they still have a lot to work out in their own county before helping the whole world. Which is probably true for every county in some sense but I don’t think China isn’t the super power that everyone thinks they are.
ReplyDeleteAnd are you meaning to end every post in “a symbol for peace”? Just wondering.
Susan
Thanks for the feedback Susan. I appreciate your support in my support for the UN! I don't think that a lot of people really feel that the UN is in the best interest of the US, so I was hoping to be able to present a middle road view on how it is beneficial for all (including the US).
ReplyDeleteAlso, why don't you think China to be a superpower? Sure they have a lot of political, and economic issues, but their productivity and their global presence definitely puts them in the realm of a country in very much in power. I'm just curious as to your opinions here. I'm not really incredibly well informed about China's economic, political, or military stances, so I'm interested to hear about what you have to say.
The UN is merely a place for nations to exercise their desired agenda for their nation. There is no altruism, only national determinism.
ReplyDeleteSmaller nations now have a platform to be heard, which is a good thing. However, other nations use the UN as merely a sound board for their own selfish agendas. They need the UN for support for their own agenda. The United States is exactly the same, only, we don't need a platform to speak on our agenda and national desires. We just do what we want for better or for worse.
Overall, the UN may have noble intentions, but just like every government body, they are incompetent, corrupt, and ineffective.
Travis used the word "agenda" 4 times in 8 sentences.
ReplyDeleteChina is a major economic powerhouse. How deep in China's pockets do you think we are thanks to all the government spending? that trillion has to be coming from some place.
same goes for our nike shoes and power ranger action figures.
haha Nike isn't just in China, they have factories all over Asia silly. But China is considered a third world country. In 2004 the World Bank estimated that 128 million (9.9 %) of China's total 1.3 billion people were poor in 2004, based off a 1$ per person per day. I wish I remembered other random facts from my Global Issues class but that's all I got right now but they are considered a third world or developing country what ever you want to call it.
ReplyDeleteSusan
Susan
ReplyDeleteAlthough China may be considered a developing country, its government holds enough manpower and financial resources to wield a fairly heavy influence in geo-political affairs.
Travis,
I would disagree. The Security Council or the General Assembly may fit the bill of your description, but there are many subcomittees, and programs run by the UN for independent agendas, to advance global development. Certainly reform could be made to make the governing better, but I believe that the idea behind the UN, and many of its underlying governing practices support a more unified global future.
Adam,
When can I get another Power Rangers action figure from you?
Well China is a huge country and its economy has been growing for the past thirty years since they've changed systems. But, though their GDP is so high, because of their large population, an average person only made about $6,600 in 2009, according to the CIA's stats. "Measured on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis that adjusts for price differences, China in 2009 stood as the second-largest economy in the world after the US, although in per capita terms the country is still lower middle-income. The Chinese government faces numerous economic development challenges, including: (a) reducing its high domestic savings rate and correspondingly low domestic demand through increased corporate transfers and a strengthened social safety net; (b) sustaining adequate job growth for tens of millions of migrants and new entrants to the work force; (c) reducing corruption and other economic crimes; and (d) containing environmental damage and social strife related to the economy's rapid transformation." That quote is also from the CIA Factbook.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the UN: I think we have to remember the other countries besides the US. It's not like the whole thing is run by us. The president and many of the cabinet members aren't American. Also, everything any government is involved in will be at least a little corrupt. Power does that, but someone has to give it a try. I think, for the most part, that the US has problems with anything that doesn't go our way. For example, the trade limits the UN can set like they did with the dolphin safe tuna fishing and steel manufacturing. Overall, I think the UN is a good thing and should have more support from the people.
The only thing that really bugs me about the UN is in crises like the Rwandan Civil War, they are too slow to react. For such a large organization they can be a little disappointing sometimes.
Abby
Thanks for the stats Abby! That does put a lot of things into perspective when talking about China and their economic situation. I would still argue that they are considered a major world power with significan influence in international affairs though.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right, though, we tend to have problems with things that don't go the way of the U.S. wants them to. More often than not, I feel that our desires as a nation are driven from our capitalistic greed, which puts profits infront of people. I see the UN as a strong organization that seeks to confront that model of carrying out politics.
I wanted to comment b/c I used to handle the UN portfolio for the UCC office and I agree with everything that's been said in terms of the hope and promise of the UN. The MGDs have been particularly effective in generating support/interest/awareness and while they have fallen shamefully short, there ARE some concrete achievements we've seen (a serious reduction in maternal mortality is one). So I'm grateful for that because at this point, I'll take whatever I can get that is positive and hopeful in global development.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of its global peacekeeping force - while inefficient and kind of messed up at times - I think they've been able to also achieve some incredible things, and it would be a huge loss to humanity to have that taken away.....
But I also agree with everything that's been said about the inefficiency and corruption. All in all, I have come to think the UN needs to be completely demolished and rebuilt. Yes, they do have some really amazing and quasi-effective programs (that could possible be transferred/housed in another way if the UN were to dismantle) and you hate to throw the baby out with the bath water, but that baby has to go!
The UN was begun during a very specific time in history. The World Council of Churches, World Bank, IMF were all created around the same time and they all exhibit similar issues with total Euro/American domination and Industrial Revolution / 20th century structures that simply aren't functioning or even relevant in a post-modern / 21st century world.
It's become such a huge bureaucracy now that it's completely inefficient and it is undeniably a safe-haven for corruption. You can't separate out the Security Council or GA quite so neatly from the rest of it.....the fact that there is no middle eastern country sitting on the Security Council (STILL) is such a testament to its institutionalized bias and systematic functions that keep a select few in power. Anything built during that period of history just is not structured in a way that is democratic, open, people-centric, poor-centric, and I'd go so far as to say human rights-centric.
I would say that reform is necessary, but it's too big. Reform efforts have been underway for decades, and they are slow and ineffective. The systemic biases are so institutionalized and it's such a good ole boys club, that changes voted on often don't become implemented in reality. Because of all of these things, I don't think it's salvageable (aside from moving particularly successful programs into NGOs who could keep them going), but rather that the UN should be completely dismantled. (continued below)
(continued) I don't think the idea of a world body that works towards peace and cooperation is outdated. And Alan - I think that's where you're going with this post. The underlying idea of the United States getting in line with / being accountable to the rest of the world in some structured place is certainly necessary. But just because the UN is the best we have now, doesn't mean it's functional. In it's place, we need a new, post-modern institution that is developed with representatives from all countries present, regardless of financial or military influence. Only then could it get any cred in my mind.
ReplyDeleteI also think that dismantling the UN without dismantling the World Bank or IMF would be a little counter-productive: all 3 have to go! I mean, you can't dismantle a security body that has a slant towards keeping Europe and the US in power unless you dismantle a financial body that does the same. (As for the World Council of Churches, I believe it will whittle away slowly and painfully on its own due to its complete lack of vision and innovation and due to the fact it doesn't have a corrupt government like the US to prop it up financially like the WB and IMF have.)
On a side note, after working on international legislation in DC for 3 years, I have come to realize that any hopes for the US to begin to live up to its expectations at the UN are dead in the water on Capitol HIll. There just isn't enough Congressional support for funding and cooperation. I don't know all the history that goes into that, but for instance, the international legislative environment is so bad, that in preparing lobby points, we always left out any direct references to the UN (even when lobbying at Dems offices). That organization is a sure-fire way to turn off most Congress people to any kind of legislative proposal.
It's really sad when you look at it from the standpoint of just how un-cooperative our Congress is when it comes to international issues, but also....I don't know, sometimes I'm glad we're not pumping a lot of money into the UN (even tho we look like ass holes because we pledge money and then don't deliver it). I'd rather see that money going to smaller, innovative, efficient initiatives that have been proven to work and pass certain standards of transparency. Measuring / monitoring / controlling corruption in the UN is like trying to get George Bush to use correct grammar - just don't hold your breath.
**Alan, on a tangental note, NGOs that are registered with the UN are able to send a certain number of delegates to the UN DPI-NGO conference every year. They moved it to a different country (Australia) this year for the first time EVER, which sucks for you....but if they hold it in NYC in '11 or '12, you have to get yourself there. It's incredible. The UCC might have an open spot for you to attend cuz they seldom use all theirs up. I know I just dissed the UN but this conference really is incredibly and you would love it!**