International Organizations stop nations from reaching their full potential

Hello. I am Dylan, and this is my first debate on Debate.org. I look forward to a debate that will both intrigue me and keep me busy over the next few days. -- Introduction -- In order to understand "International Organization" we must first define it. An international organization is an organization with an international membership, scope, or presence. There are two main types: International nongovernmental organizations (INGOs): non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that operate internationally. [1] In this debate we will specifically be talking abut IMGOs. For example, the United Nations, NATO, the EU ect. Point 1: Some INGOs slow down the economic growth of the international community, and thus slow down the individual countries. For this instance let us use the IMF. The IMF is an IMGO that was founded in July 1944 for the purpose of stabilizing the worlds economy.[2] The IMF is a unique INGO with the way that the voting works. The IMF uses funds from the member nations to create a reservoir of money that they can use if they get a majority vote on the situation. Voting power: The quota largely determines a member's voting power in IMF decisions. Each IMF member has 250 basic votes plus one additional vote for each SDR 100,000 of quota. Accordingly, the United States has 371,743 votes (16.74 percent of the total), and Palau has 281 votes (0.01 percent). [3] What that means is if enough nations with larger votes vote against something that the smaller nations not only want, but need, then the larger economic nations (The Untied States, Germany, the Netherlands ect.) can easily mussel their way through and end up benefiting no other economy other than themselves. This effectivly gives the smaller nations (Palau, Cï¿½te d'Ivoire, Vanuatu) no chance of survival. Point 2: INGOs like the UN lack the speed and power to help nations in their time of need, often crippling them to the point of no recovery. They therefor offer a bleak hope to nations in need. The UN is an embarrassment to the way that the world has tried to implement an international police force. They do no have the resources that is needed to undertake such a feat. They have time and time again cried out "We need more money to do stuff!" They were underfunded during Haiti hurricane relief. [4] They claim that almost every operation in Africa is underfunded. [5] And they just recently decided to shell out 9 million, yes million, USD in grants. During Bosnia & Herzegovina, on of the UN's least shining moments, the United Nations had tasked itself to protect over the most violence Europe had seen since World War II. The United nations had had enough and asked for outside assistance. Having not realized the situation beforehand, the UN had left the sovereign state of Bosnia and Herzegovina in a state of peril for the next ten years. A lifestyle that has not gotten much better for the Bosnian, Croats, and Serbs living in the country. [6] I thank the person who takes this debate, and look forward to their opening argument. Thank you! -=References=- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.imf.org... [4] http://www.un.org... [5] http://www.unmultimedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...