The UN actually does have the power to do stuff when everyone agrees, but the problem is the veto nations keep the UN from ever exercising power. It's a busted system and it's going to collapse.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I don't know about the collapse part (we've seen much worse shit happen throughout its history). The main purpose of the UN effectively is to protect the former allied powers from a power that is against them all. Oh, and also to prevent genocides where none of the allied powers can profit off of. And also as a group chat.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

What do you think the League of Nations was? The problem the UN faces now is legitimacy - the world has to treat the UN like it's important and not just an arm of a few powerful countries. International law ceases to have meaning if the UN is revealed as a group chat.

Without that legitimacy we're going to see a breakdown of the post-WW2 era of limited conflict and enter another world war.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Wasn't one of the biggest reasons for the League of Nations failing, the US not joining? A collapse of the UN would mean member states leaving. How would leaving be in the interest of any member state?

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

If the UN imposes something on one of those member states that they disagree with while refusing to impose something on a US ally that everyone else agrees with. You know, like how the UN has voted to denounce Russian aggression in Ukraine and penalized them for it, but is unable to do the same for Israel's aggression in Palestine (and Lebanon and Iran etc). Consequences for thee, not for me!

So if the African countries rebelling against ECOWAS and the countries involved in China's belt-and-road and the countries in Russia's envelope and all the so-called "pariah states" like Venezuela and Cuba decide they will not respect UN resolutions anymore...