Nostalgia and Crossovers

Member 266

Level 32.27

Mar 2006

|
May 14, 2007, 12:57 PM
Local time: May 14, 2007, 10:57 AM
|
#1 of 20
|
To be frank, the UN was a joke the moment they decided to create it without its own standing army. No nation or international organization can hope to have any real power in global politics without one (unless Costa Rica is a superpower...?), and the decision to have the UN supported by nations' armies just tips the balance of power widely in favor of the US and other powerful nations.
It also doesn't help that its real power is concentrated solely on the security council, where it is impossible to pass sanctions against the permanent members thanks to their veto power.
Any organization that is going to have the teeth to be a significant influence on *all* nations in the world without being a puppet of a select few powerful countries needs to have a more balanced and viable form of government, and needs its own standing army. Unfortunately, it's more or less impossible to reform the system, and those in power would loathe a new organization with an army that they cannot control.
The UN's here to stay, but that doesn't mean I like it. Its methods of forcing itself on other nations are ineffective at best, and that's even if you can get around the security council's 5 automatic vetoes.
Jam it back in, in the dark.
|