Do you think the UN is a useful organization?
It seems to me like it vilifies US enemies and does almost nothing when it comes to anything else.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/co-is
This is on their humans rights page and the only country mentioned here aside from the usual list is Israel and a few others. If I were to read some of the stuff written here about a country like DPRK how likely is it to be true?
What do communists think of the UN? The creation of the UN was supported by the USSR so there must have been something beneficial to it? or did the old UN disappear alongside the USSR?
It would be very nice to get your opinions on this, thank you.
The security council, by not including all member states, pretty much means the euroamerikkkan faction (US, UK, and France, which really just means the US) can do whatever it wants militarily, since it outvotes the other 2 members (Russia and China). Those 3 countries have a tiny minority of the world’s people, yet get to start as many wars as they want with impunity.
Historically, the UN, whose stated reason for existing is ensuring international peace and security, has completely failed in that goal. The US continued throughout the 20th century to prosecute wars and kill millions of people(and its still bombing like 6 countries), and the UN did absolutely nothing to stop them. As Vijay Prashad said, the cold war really just meant that most of the real wars were carried out against global south countries.
As Lenin said, these governmental orgs become nothing more than a managing body for the affairs of the bourgeoisie… the UN becomes just a place where oppressed nations can publicly air their grievances, but they know the org is not an impartial referee, it exists to serve its most powerful members.
The security council, by not including all member states, pretty much means the euroamerikkkan faction (US, UK, and France, which really just means the US) can do whatever it wants militarily, since it outvotes the other 2 members (Russia and China). Those 3 countries have a tiny minority of the world’s people, yet get to start as many wars as they want with impunity.
I don’t think this is quite accurate: each of the permanent members has veto power, which means the UNSC can’t pass any resolution unless all 5 allow it (it’s also a huge power disparity compared to the non-permanent members that makes the latter little more than tokens).
So the reason the UNSC can’t ensure international peace and security is because any attempt by the Security Council to hold the US to account for its warmongering gets vetoed… by the US. Similar result, but there’s an important difference: Russia and China’s veto power mean that the US can’t manipulate the UNSC into justifying their murderous behaviour either. More importantly the UNSC has to approve any changes to the UN Charter, so Russia and China’s vetoes prevent the West from turning the entire UN into another tool of Western Hegemony like the IMF and World Bank.
As it is, the UNSC veto mechanisms just leave the UN as toothless diplomatic infrastructure, which is probably for the best considering that a more flexible UN would have more than likely been reshaped in the US’s favour during the unipolar post-cold-war.
It has/had some noble goals and achievements, but really its a front for a capitalist world order. Must be dismantled and replaced with a new global Warsaw Pact.
Nice concept, poorly executed.
Worth to remember that RSFSR proposed something like the UN, opposed to already politically bankrupted League of Nations, at the Genoa conference in 1922, with most work been done by Chicherin with help of Lenin. Of course, west, especially France, never intended to come to Genoa with good faith, they just wanted to diplomatically force RSFSR to compliance when the military interventions failed.
