There’s a great potential for making the U.N. a stronger, more effective body. But that does require actually working with the U.N., instead of doing nothing and then complaining that the U.N. “doesn’t do anything.”

Exactly - and as the commenters here illustrate, that's the biggest part of the problem.

Thought experiment - if the UN is so useless and powerless, then both McCain commenters here should be OK with the US giving up its veto on the UNSC but allowing the other veto-holders to keep theirs. After all, what difference would it make? How would that play to the nationalist and UN-hating base?

Personally, I think the first step in reform is to have all the vetos done away with - and only the US could lead that push with any hope at all of success. Maybe McCain could suggest it. :-)

Regards, C

Look, Alex, we’re been working within that framework for 50 years, now…and it has demonstrated itself beyond ‘fixing’, may times over. How much money, time and effort goes into this nonsense, how many lives will get lost, how many rights will get trampled, before we call in an airstrike on Turtle Bay and start over?

But we haven't consistently and exclusively worked within that framework as a global influence to lend the proper credence the U.N. requires in order to work. Would we concede to its authority in international affairs, it could be remarkably effective.

What, to your mind should be the goals of the UN, and why is the UN the way to go to get to those goals? In that same context, what, to your way of thinking would constitute ‘repair’ toward that end?

That's an excellent question, and I don't think a comment will do it justice. Let me organize my thoughts on the subject and I'll post in the next couple of days.

Alex,
What, to your mind should be the goals of the UN, and why is the UN the way to go to get to those goals? In that same context, what, to your way of thinking would constitute 'repair' toward that end?

...

Sorry - but after you write that how can you expect anyone to take anything you write seriously? When you put free countries on the same level as totalitarian slave states then the goal shouldn't be to make you any stronger or more effective.

Throwing out words like "imperialism" and "absurdity" makes it clear this topic is not one some want to address in a rational manner.

Americans have been dissatisfied with the UN for years. Many foreign policy experts have been dissatisfied. What is wrong with talking about alternatives? What is wrong with a minimal requirement of democracy for membership? What is wrong with strong leadership instead of compromising away principles?

Do you really think the Mugabe’s and Sudan’s of the world would really come to the US and engage us (on their own behalf) to better the country, or to better their elite?

Precisely.
And such people have been far more successful at advancing such, than we have in advancing western values there. Mostly because of all the groups and cultures represented at the UN, we're the only ones trying to 'respect all cultures and governments'. The UN by it;s very design gives such nonsense a tool they would not otherwise have; legitimacy. We've seen over the past half century how that's worked out.

Do you really think the Mugabe's and Sudan's of the world would really come to the US and engage us (on their own behalf) to better the country, or to better their elite?

The US, *SHOULD*, want to better their people, for all (in an ideal world), in the World of Autocrats, they'll only look out for the Autocrats, no matter how many backs of their people they break.

Sure, I would encourage the US to work with them to DEVELOP to a democratic nation, which will advance all of their people.

We've seen before that other countries already work to prop up the autocrats so Russia/China/Iran gets 1st access to the country (or sells prime goods to them, like guns).

Is it that hard to fathom, that minor-league autocrats would look to big-league autocrats for support to keep their regime's in power, instead of looking to the US/EU to keep them in power?

Because the UN is really nothing more than a good ol' boys network international style that gives legitimacy to rogue nations.

I think the human rights commission is a great example of this problem.

So if you want to work within the UN what do you propose be done?

I would never dispute that the UN doesn’t have problems. I just don’t see why we can’t, you know, work within the UN to solve them.

Why?

Look, Alex, we're been working within that framework for 50 years, now...and it has demonstrated itself beyond 'fixing', may times over. How much money, time and effort goes into this nonsense, how many lives will get lost, how many rights will get trampled, before we call in an airstrike on Turtle Bay and start over?

A League of Autocrats will only try to appeal to those nation’s which have/are failing (ie Africa). It certainly won’t appeal to a nation which is successful (EU), or striving to be successful (ie most of South America).

Exactly right. So why isolate them? Why not engage them and extend our relationships and influence with them, instead of undermining it? It doesn't make any sense.