UN Paragraph revision

Despite the disorganized website, it is clear that the UN is a very good organization, and will not do any harm. One could argue that they are inactive, and cannot exert any justice on the world, but it urns out they are just what we needed. The UN has made may decisions for a long time, consistently, and employs their own peace corps, made up of soldiers from many of the different countries who hold seats at the UN. It is these many countries that give the UN its strength: strength not only in numbers, but also in the wide varieties of perspectives and cultures offered. This large array of countries will help the UN be successful, as if one countries breaks the peace, like Germany did, there are many, many other countries to help stop them. The League of Nations did not work because it had so few countries, so that when Germany decided to take over Europe, it was difficult to do anything. The humanitarian missions of the UN are perhaps even better than their declarations. Before the UN, it was up to small, private organizations to deliver assistance to those in need, and floundering countries were virtually left on their own. Gaining help from a large, unified organization can only improve impoverished or war-torn areas.

Unfortunately, Sir, it's a bit more complicated.

False promises have never done anybody any good. They build hope higher and higher until - bam. It all comes crashing down. When the UN uses phrases such as "WE CAN end poverty" or saying that "Falling short [of their Millennium Development Goals] would be an unacceptable failure." (The United Nation's MDGs) they are using false hope as a way to get people on their side. Ending poverty is a goal that is far too large for one organization, even as big as the UN, to take on. To say that they would be a failure to not achieve their goals automatically makes people think they will, without a doubt, achieve their goals. Upon looking more closely, an educated person knows the UN cannot, by any means, end poverty. Really what they are doing in this document is calling themselves a failure. Other documents, such as one by the General Assembly emphasizing anti-poverty, are no less hopeful, and no less unrealistic. When discussing how necessary it was to fund this cause, a representative said, "If you do not fund the Global Fund, [the impoverished children] die. If you fund the Global Fund, they survive. There is nothing complicated about this.” Unfortunately, Sir, it's a bit more complicated than that. How are you planning on dividing this fund equally among every child in the entire world who is dying of hunger? Will this fund be enough to cover food, extensive medical care, and everything else a child needs who has been living in poverty their entire life? The more people you give money to, the less money each person gets. There is nothing complicated about that.

In addition, it is unacceptable that the UN declares all humans equal rights , while not enforcing these rights. Of the 30 articles written, almost all of them mentioned equal rights to every race, gender, religious affiliation, political opinion, etc. However, most people know that all over the world, there are people being treated unequally for all of these reasons. My question is, if the UN is not going to follow up on a simple declaration of rights, how are they planning on maintaining what they emphasized so highly in the Charter: world peace?

Though credit has to be given to the UN for trying their best to make the world safe, I find it almost impossible to see the UN as actually being effective. They can make as many charters and declarations as they want and write as many formal papers about keeping the world safe as they deem necessary, but in the end those words aren’t going to prevent war. They said in the Charter that extreme actions would have to be taken to prevent war, but that seems to be ignoring the fact that extreme actions would in fact be war. Since the first Charter was done written after World War II, the UN has written more statements in the same manner, but still none of them are really taken to heart by the rest of the world. Further, their Security Council seemed to be created more to make a statement about who the UN thought the best nations were rather than who they thought could make sure the world was safe. After reading about the Security Council, though they seem to hold their personal decisions to a high level, they're decisions aren't publicized or really enforced. The Security Council isn't the only council with superficial sounding assignments. There is also an Economic and Social Council who is supposed to keep the world's economy and social problems under control. This doesn't even make sense because it is impossible for one group to keep hundreds of different economies and social climates under control. It's a fine idea, but practically impossible. Though it must be duly noted that the UN tries hard at maintaining peace, the UN is just pretty backdrop put in front international affairs so that the world doesn’t really see how dirty the countries of the world play negotiation games.

UN-successful

What the UN is trying to do is just too much they have to minimized their goals because they will undoubtedly fail and many countries will see that the UN wasn't going to live up to its expectations. If the UN would just lower their expectations then they will be successful and be able to command respect from all of the countries in the world. Also they are tying to get stability and peace from every country. which honestly is impossible there is absolutely no way it can keep everyone from getting into fights.

http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=475

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm

http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=233

Spend 20 minutes BROWSING the United Nations website. READ at least one declaration signed by the UN. Then, REVISE one of your paragraphs from class today, using information you learned from the UN site. Provide AT LEAST THREE LINKS within your paragraph.

My opinion of the Charter of the United Nations is that it is one of the best ideas to reach our goal for peace once and for-all. There is already too much war and bloodshed, which is causing countries to have grudges against each other. This charter will end the conflict and create peace within each country in every continent. I believe that it will it will give each person the rights of peace that they deserve. Some people may favor war, but who wants to have family and friends constantly dying? Why would you want to be another young man of thousands to die in a pointless war? The U.N. is made of the General Assembly, Security Council, Economic, and Social council. It develops friendly relations among nations and promotes social progress, better living standards, and human rights. The Charter of the United Nations is meant to help the countries and will create peace among all people of the earth.

Pirate Peace

The wold needs an organization like this now. After two world wars, the we know how bad the living conditions, death tolls, etc have gotten. They could get worse if we don't try to keep peace throughout the world. If we never aspire to have world peace, we never will. Although it's unlikely to keep the entire world at peace, it's the right idea to hope. This organization addresses more than one area that need peace and protection. They are making universal rules, "more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules" Nothing is forcing these countries to not break the rules, other than the honor code. The only thinkable punishment would be to go to war against that country, however, that is against the UN's goals. At least, there are hopes and goals that people can look to to feel bad about breaking.

Trying

The UN Charter has been going around for a bit yet we cannot feel any change in present times. Not that we expected anything to happen, but the UN is a seriously biased organization. The heads of council are all of the powerful allies that won, and thus everything must go their way. The peace that they have said is nothing better than the treaty for Germany after the first World War, when everything was blamed upon them. Germany was restricted of any offensive movements, which made their desire for revenge even deeper. What we are facing now is the pathetic consequence of their tries to keep peace, simply restricting everything and anything of war. It is the same now, only a temporary moment of silence as the fuse is burning, and soon one will blow. If then, others shall follow and the council that the UN has will also split. The world will then again commit to a silent war, but a war nonetheless.

The UN? Eh...

The UN's goals and ambitions are certainly ideal, but they are too idealistic. By promising to ensure world peace, the UN burdens itself with the problems of the world. It hopes to act as a type of "world police" that brings countries together (or apart) and tension to an end. However, the UN can only do so much as to determine nations and ensure their peace. In a sense, by intervening so much in international affairs, the UN limits other countries' freedom to self-determine. After all, doesn't that defy the very cardinal rule of the UN Charter?

Student Council? Earth Week?

Although uniting the nations of the world under a common goal of peace seems like a good idea in theory, the United Nations fails in the execution of the lofty moral guidelines that it champions. As a humanitarian organization, the UN appears completely philanthropic based on the official statements that they make about social injustice (genocide, violence against women) and seems, as a judge, a very powerful conscience to the world. However, it quickly becomes clear that the UN is more like a discussion about what should happen ideally; it lists the steps that need to be taken, but it refuses to take the initiative to make that happen. It seems like (rather appropriately this week) a student council candidate declaring passionately that the ice cream machine should be returned or that we should have more days that start late. Since their promises are clearly overambitious, it's almost expected that they fail to deliver. The same comparison can be made with environmental awareness groups (look at that...) who discuss the issues with the world that need to be fixed, but in the scheme of things, they hold no power over that workings of our vast planet. In official statements by the Security Council, the group of people that supposedly has the potentially to regulate other countries' actions, the opening sentence of each paragraph always seems to be, "The Security Council reiterates," 'The Security Council is alarmed," "The Security Council reaffirms," "The Security Council welcomes." Never is it stated, "The Security Council does." They only seem to look onto the actions of the outside world and either give the the thumbs up of affirmation or shake their head in disapproval. Articles, such as the recent earth day article, do seem like a community service organization, announcing ideals but never following through. The UN has the right idea, but their professed task to maintain absolute peace, freedom, and justice in the world is inherently impossible.

In Defense of the UN

I believe the UN hasn't accomplished anything meaningful in terms of something concrete the UN has accomplished. They throw around big words like "international peace" and "Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis," but this doesn't mean the UN has solved any problems. Sure the world hasn't launched any nukes at each other, but is that really the UN's doing? Countries like the United States and Russia reduced their arsenals but that was because Prez Obama wanted this to happen. The United Nations has admirably and foolishly taken on the task of being the world's largest philanthropic organization. They tackle every single problem and it results in no confirmed solutions. Last time I checked there are still billions of people without enough food, 1 million people a year dead from malaria and more civil wars than I can count. I see the UN as an idealistic group of people in a sweet blue building in New York City that took on more than they could handle.

Swing and a Miss

Although the United Nations has honorable intentions to eventually make the world a better place, that is an impractical goal coming from an idealist organization. In the UN charter, they tried to create international peace. There is a lot of tension in the middle east, and that tension won't just go away as easily as the united nations says it will. In an article about Earth Day , they take about preserving mother earth, but they do not give any constructive advice on how to preserve the environment. Also, they talk about food shortages, but it is nearly impossible to rid the world of poverty and food shortages. Though it is a very good motive, it is an implausible goal.

UNsignificant

The UN will never truly make a difference in our world. First of all, the goals are implausible:

Target 1:
Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day

Target 2:
Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people

Target 3:
Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger

How can the United Nations expect to accomplish these goals? To me it seems like the problems of poverty and hunger are only on the rise. The United Nations is unrealistic. MAYBE there is a chance that they can start to get things done once they talk about specifically what they are doing and start with goals that are just a step in the right direction. Perhaps instead of trying to achieve full employment, they could have a more reachable goal such as to employ a specific number of people and to have a method of achieving the goal. Secondly, how can people support the UN? By getting their voice heard? The UN isn't doing anything anyway, what makes anyone think that when they say some idea, it will suddenly get done. I'm not saying that it is necessarily the fault of the UN, as they have good intentions, but their goals are just simply unreachable.

Damned If You Do

Though the United Nations may have good intentions, their charter will likely be an utter failure, promoting only the appearance of peace rather than the truth of it. First off, their laws are flawed; the articles are often vague and self-contradictory, leaving more than enough room for any country to go back on an agreement while staying within the bounds of their judgement system. For example, the second articles states that they should "settle their international disputes by peaceful means," but at the same time "take appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace." The only way to "strengthen peace" in the face of aggression is with equal or greater force. They also often promote equality of all kinds but give some countries more power on the Security Council than others. Kindly as they are, these rules are not restrictive of anything. Really, this group of self-proclaimed judges has no right to press their standards on other nations that have had no say, even if these standards are of the highest quality. From the creation of their laws can we see the failure already begin. For example, Article 23 of the Declaration of Human Rights states that all people have the right to equal pay, yet men are still paid more than women. From this instance and others we can see that there is no way for the UN to enforce their law other than by breaking their own pact of nonaggression or pledge to not interfere in the domestic affairs of any country. Really, this charter is only a spectator (of sorts) that encourages the nations of the world to act ethically and for the greater good rather than for self interest. Even this can cause some evil though; such a watcher only forces those with bad intentions to veil them even further so that none will suspect that they are not a true alliance. This follows the line of Hitler, who made nonaggression agreements with several countries before going back on them a few years later. The fact that he agreed to the treaties meant nothing to him and only succeeded in lulling his "allies" into a false sense of complacency. The same will be true of the United Nations. Countries will think that those involved are their supporters, while in truth it can be quite the opposite. In the end, this charter will cause countries to merely feign the appearance of friendship while hiding deceit.

International Peace is Becoming Cliché

The United Nations charter promised unattainable goals and achieved nothing. It mentioned "international piece" numerous times throughout the document. International peace will never actually happen because you can't stop conflicts from occurring. Promises are often made but they are impossible to fulfill. There will never be an ideal society no matter how many times the UN says International peace. It would have been better if they had at least offered some constructive advice on how to reach this lofty goal.