Today, in honor of UN Day, DipNote, the “U.S. Department of State Official Blog,” is soliciting responses to the question above. We believe that, although there are certainly steps to be taken to ensure that the UN can more efficiently fulfill its mission (both in terms of reform and the full payment of dues by key Member States), the answer is clear (and thoroughly and eloquently spelled out here).
Submit your answer on DipNote and write to us here at UN Dispatch.
A selection from those who have weighed in at DipNote after the jump.
Ralph in Greece writes:
I believe the UN has always done the best it can. With any organization run by people, you will have problems, but the system works. Now, please get them to pay their parking tickets!! Please!
Posted on Wed Oct 24, 2007
Robert in Ohio writes:
As far as keeping some sort of dialogue open, I’ll say sure. As for the “help solve economic, social, and humanitarian problems” bit… unless you count writing futile angry letters a viable solution I’ll say no. And as with any org there will be corruption (Oil for Food prog, etc). So, I guess it really depends on what function you’d like to stress.
Posted on Wed Oct 24, 2007
Scott in Washington, DC writes:
The U.S.-UN relationships is like a marriage. It isn’t always perfect and we don’t always get what we want, but life would be much more difficult without our partner. The UN today is at least as relevant – and as helpful to U.S. interests – as it has ever been.
Posted on Tue Oct 23, 2007
Kashif in America writes:
Yes the U.N. may not be effective at times and might seem to serve the interests of certain nations who have veto power but without a consensus, no matter how horrible the other parties you are forming a consensus with are, it is still important to include them in the process. Without inclusion then you end up giving on aura of exclusivity and if that occurs all nations will feel themselves to be exempt from a framework of international law due to this aura of exclusivity. This is already occuring where Ameica thinks it can preempt and label countries as good and evil, what is stopping other coutries like Russia in doing the same against legitimate freedom struggles like in Chechnya by labeling these freedom fighters “evil” to justify horrible means of subjugation. Legitimate freedom struggles around the world have only to be labeled evil for dominating hegemonic powers to assert their will over these freedom fighters. Hey maybe the colonists of America were evil too and maybe Britain was right back then to call american colonists traitors; a list like this can go on forever but I think my point has been made.