View Full Version : Ron Paul and the United Nations
Brasil Branco
08-19-2007, 02:43 PM
I'm a bit worried about Ron Paul's decision to withdraw from the United Nations. I know the security council is fundementally flawed, but I think the United Nations houses so many important organisations such as UNICEF, and has become such a vital foundation for many NGOs that a US presence is necessary. I would rather see a view of reform, changing the security council, removing unceccesary bureacracy which hinders meritocracy, and places individuals in posistions with respect to gender or nationality. I think much of the UN's problems and views of inefficiency and incompetence can be traced back to Bush's approach to it.
US funding is allready low as it is (Around 20%)- I think that a US presence would be valuable as long as they don't continously attempt to push their agenda, though- I guess that's a fundemental flaw as all nations will attempt to push some kind of agenda.
So why does Ron Paul advocate a complete withdraw?
ctb619
08-19-2007, 02:49 PM
I think much of the UN's problems and views of inefficiency and incompetence can be traced back to Bush's approach to it.
The inefficiency and incompetence of the United Nations began long before George Bush. The "founding fathers" of the UN envisioned the organization to be much more than a forum for diplomacy and a mechanism for humanitarian aid.
constituent
08-19-2007, 02:57 PM
much of the benefit from programs like unicef is completely negated by the rest of the UN...
it's kinda like how peacecorps wasn't really about bringing peace. do you follow?
Brasil Branco
08-19-2007, 03:00 PM
much of the benefit from programs like unicef is completely negated by the rest of the UN...
it's kinda like how peacecorps wasn't really about bringing peace. do you follow?
That's why I think reform is a better way to go than abandonment
lost_in_samoa
08-19-2007, 03:01 PM
..
ctb619
08-19-2007, 03:06 PM
That's why I think reform is a better way to go than abandonment
Reform is certainly better than nothing, as long as we can be reasonably assured that the reform will drastically limit the competences of the United Nations and prevent the organization from impinging on US sovereignty. However, if you follow the course of recent reform efforts, the problems identified always stem from not having enough power, autonomy and funding. So in order to make the organization run more efficiently, they are requesting greater resources and more authority. Any reform effort needs to go in the opposite direction. Ron Paul seems to believe that the organization is fundamentally flawed, and real reform is not possible in light of its organizational make-up (every nation has a say, countries don't have friends, they have interests).
Brasil Branco
08-19-2007, 03:09 PM
I think it's an overstatement to call it "corrupt" and "inefficient". I have a lot of friends who work at the United Nations, and the work they do is quite benificial. They don't have any dark secret agendas- quite a few of them love their jobs, so I see a lot of good in the United Nations, if a few individuals are pulling their strings- I don't know, but there are a lot of good people who work there.
For instance, someone close to me works at the United Nations Office for Outerspace Affairs. He sets up workshops to let developing countries gain access to satellite technology in order to cope with disaster managment.
The program is going to be set up in China- and for that sole reason, it has gone under the scrutiny of the United States- so people are quick to point at the UN's problems, but don't realise that the US's foreign policy makes up for quite a few of them.
ctb619
08-19-2007, 03:12 PM
I think it's an overstatement to call it "corrupt" and "inefficient". I have a lot of friends who work at the United Nations, and the work they do is quite benificial.
For instance, someone close to me works at the United Nations Office for Outerspace Affairs. He sets up workshops to let developing countries gain access to satellite technology in order to cope with disaster managment.
The program is going to be set up in China- and for that sole reason, it has gone under the scrutiny of the United States- so people are quick to point at the UN's problems, but don't realise that the US's foreign policy makes up for quite a few of them.
There are many wonderful people that work for the United Nations, great humanitarians who sacrifice much to do good for humanity. But in order to evaluate an organization as large of the UN, we must make generalizations, and overall, the UN is inefficient and corrupt, just as the current US administration is inefficient and corrupt. There are scores of great people in the Department of Education, and Ron Paul wants to get rid of it. Not because those people are bad or ineffective, but because the fundamentals of the system do not benefit the people and/or they are unconstitutional and at odds with our founding principles.
lost_in_samoa
08-19-2007, 03:20 PM
..
PennCustom4RP
08-19-2007, 03:20 PM
I don't thing RP wants to dissolve the UN, just end US involvement in it, and get it off US soil.
If the UN is truly worthy of survival, it will with the support of all the other member Nations, as they can continue to fund it...elsewhere.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.