IS THERE NEED TO REVITALIZE UNITED NATIONS

Okay it's on now!! I have been looking forward to this debate for a long time and I am ready to rock and roll. I just wish that you were highly in favor of the United Nations rather than just wanting to revamp it. Which is what I think you meant rather than "revitalize" it, am I correct in this? Anyway, on with the debate!! To start off, let's just remember the UN was founded in 1945 in San Francisco. The first Secretary General was none other than Alger Hiss, convicted traitor and spy for the Soviet Union. As if this wasn't enough, to prove my point we will now take a look at the Charter of the United Nations and see how well it's done its job. "To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind…" Well, we know how well they have fulfilled this part of the charter don't we? "To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and nations large and small…" First off, how does a pseudo-governmental agency do this? By copying this clause, didn't I just do that? "To establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained…" Gee, I wonder how many treaties that the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Vietnam, just to mention a few, violated right under the nose of the UN without them doing anything other than protest about it. "To promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom…" I'm sure that the people who lived under Apartheid really appreciated their efforts in this regard. "To practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors…" Practice makes perfect I suppose. But after 50+ years there isn't much evidence of their being successful with this either. So far we have only gone over some of the Preamble. Let's get into some of the meat of the Charter shall we? Let's look at Article I which states the purposes of the UN. "1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of peace;" Come now, can anyone honestly put forth the argument that the UN has even come close to fulfilling this, their number one stated purpose of existence? What did the UN do when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait? Not much. Who handled it? The United States that's who. At the end of Desert Storm the UN put forth resolution after resolution to try and control Iraq. Did they enforce any of them? No. And here we are 10+ years later and the U.S. is the bad guy for finally going in and enforcing them. (Whether you agree with U.S. presence in Iraq is a topic for another debate.) I bet the people in Darfur desperately wish that the UN would fulfill their primary purpose of existence and help them. What exactly are they doing about Darfur? Not much that I've heard of. Talking a lot about it but that's about it. I think I've made my point so let's continue. "2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;" Oh please! Equal rights? Most of the member nations of the UN have nothing even resembling equal rights for their citizens so this clause is just pure nonsense. That's enough on this point I think. "3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;" This is a good place to talk about the Oil For Food Program. In 1995, the UN instituted the Oil For Food program (UN Security Council Resolution 986) which allowed Iraq, who was under strict military embargo at the time due to their invasion of Kuwait, to sell some of their oil in order to provide the Iraqi people with food and other necessities. Well, it turns out that Hussein was putting billions of dollars in his own pockets as well as the pockets of many others including then Secretary General Kofi Annan's son. Many UN officers (hand picked by Kofi Annan) were investigated and fired for their gross mismanagement of the program and the UN led inquiry into the scam tried to sweep it under the rug. It wasn't until the U.S. got into it with their own investigation that got things under control. Well, it's getting late so I'll stop for now. I think I have more than made my point that the UN isn't living up to some of the important points of its own Charter. In Round 3 we will deal with the threat the UN is to the sovereignty of the United States. Thank you and I look forward to reading your next argument.