After researching the United Nations and various genocides please answer the following questions:

 

• Do you think the UN Security Council is an effective organization?
• Are they living up to their goal of world peace?
• What problems exist within the organization, if any?
• What could be done to make them more effective?
• Do you think the UN should continue to exist?

 

Answer below. Please check your answers for spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Use specific examples when possible.

 

The UN Security Council is an effective organization when it chooses to act.  History and present times show that the UN sometimes refuses to see what everyone else in the world knows is going on such as in Sudan or in Rawanda.  But when they take action they can get what they want done, but it all depends on if they choose to act or not.  I'm sure there are many cases where the security council saved many people from death, but most people, including me, only notice when the UN doesnt act when many deaths are occuring.  The UN's biggest flaw is that they have so many countries, big and small, to please, and many of them want total opposite things.  The big countries in the UN have the most say and if they really want something there is nothing the little countries can do about it.  That is one big flaw is that even though every country has equal vote in the UN they don't all have equal say in what goes on.  As long as the UN exists, which I think is should continue to do, the main countries will always have more power than your smaller countries. 

Nick W

 

Yes, I also agree, that the UN is an effective organisation, at least because there are so many countries in the world and all of them have different oppinions about politic and economic situation in the world, and, I think, we need such an international organization, that will keep peace . In my oppinion, the most difficult problem for UN is to be indepentent from any countries in the world and make a decision, wich will be objective, BUT who can say what is objective or what is not. I think, that the UN should act according with The Universal declaration of Human Rights, that's why, in my oppinion, that fact that UN did nothing to improve situation during the genoside in Iraq or Cambodia is the fault of the organisation. I think that the UN should work with the goverments of the countries closer and to provide help, when the country needs it and it's obvious, that the people of the country can't solve the problem themselves, according with the Declaration of human rights. And I think, that UN should continue to exist, because, it's the most powerful international organization now, and the world really needs it.

-Irina

 

I do not think that the UN Security Council is an effective organization.  The goal of world peace is obviously an extremely difficult one and I'm not sure if it can happen.  Nevertheless, I do think it'd a good goal to have and it's better to strive for world peace then to stand by and do nothing.  The problems with the organization is that it is tied down with too many rules and regulations.  By the time they get everyone to agree on a plan of action, alot of the time it's too late.  Instead of worrying about the "deffinition" of genocide, they should consider an injustice that is happening like in Sudan something that needs to be stopped, regardless of the guidlines.  I think that the definition of genocide needs to be wider and more forgiving.  The UN needs to be able to take action at least slightly quicker and more efficiently than it can now.  The UN should continue to exist, but with changes.  It's pretty much useless now so the rules need to be altered if it's going to stay. 

-Nicole

 

 

In some ways the Security Council is effective,but there are always flaws to organizations like that. I believe they try their best to keep world peace, but it doesnt always work. There is always going to be conflict among people.No one can stop conflict all together.I think to be more effective they can monitor it better. They need to have a better way of keeping track of what is going on. If there is any sign of genocide then there should be a full investigation and prevention program to make sure that there isnt one and there will not be one in the future. Even if conflict and genocide still occur,the UN should continue to exist because at least there is a major group making an impact on prevention of genocides.It may not always work out like we plan, but that doesnt mean it isnt effective at all.

***MacKenzie***

 

 

 

Yes, I think that the UN is an effective organization. Some of the problems with the UN that I think exist are that they are slow to react to problems in the world such as the Bosnia genocide. By the time the UN sent solders everything was over and all they did was clean up. I think that the UN’s actions should be more streamline and coordinated. Yes, I think that the UN should still exist because they keep peace most of the time in the world.

-Jake-

 

 

---

 

 

 

I honestly have no idea how effective the UN organization is, seeing as we did not research much as to what kind of resolutions pass and how often they get passed. A big problem in the organization is that there are many different countries with very different goals. I could imagine that It would be difficult to pass any resolutions in light of that fact. Additionally, there are several nations with veto power. This would make it even more difficult to pass resolutions, as any side of any argument is likely to have some nation with veto power. I have no idea how the UN could remedy this without impairing the rights of all nations to the open forum. Removing the veto power could conceivably help, but I don't have a good sense of the repercussions of doing this. I think that the UN should continue to exist, however. It provides a place for different nations to at the very least discuss international problems.

-Dane

 

 

I think the UN is effective at what it does when it decides to do things. I respect the UN for its idea of world peace but its current system still gives the big nations most of the power, which is counter-productive to their cause. The main problem lies in the fact that they allow the larger nations veto power and more influence as heads of committees and councils, besides the big nations are an intimidating force. As Dane said when different nations meet with different goals in mind there are going to be problems and the constant use of veto power prevents all kinds of acts from being passed. Removing the bigger nations from their permanent places and letting the smaller countries have more of a say would help as well as limiting the use of veto power. In my opinion if the UN begins to become more active in preventing things that threaten its mission of world peace and cooperation it should stay in operation and continue doing that.

-John

 

 

I think it would be kind of yes and no. No, because there are so many different countries in the UN that it would difficult to decide on one thing to do because there would be so much arguing. Also, as John said, only some of the countries in the UN have veto power. Yes, because they basically help the world sometimes in more than one way. They are aiming for a better world where there is no fighting or constant battles to get out of and for their idea of world peace. I'm sure they are trying to live up to it but it's kind of hard in some ways. Well, for one the UN could give veto power to all nations within the group organization, it would seem more fair because obviously they really don't have a say right now. I think it should actually because it has given us so much and they try their best to succeed at what they are aiming for, which is really good. And I hope one day the world peace idea will go into affect.

~Candice~

 

 

 

 

Yes I think the UN Security Council is effective in some ways because they try their best to keep peace between countries but i feel that they give the larger countries more power.  I don't think they're living up to the goal because the Iraq War is a major problem for not only the people of Iraq but the U.S. has many controversial feelings such as the soldiers shouldn't be there and theres no point because we're just creating a larger problem.  Also I've never heard anything about what the U.N. is trying to do to help.  A problem with the U.N. today is that they give the larger nations all the veto power and most acts are having problems with being passed.  The U.N. just needs to have a better way to keep track of things going on and i think it should still be effective because things will not always work out your way but that doesn't mean the U.N. doesn't solve problems.

-Casey

 

 

 

 

I believe that the UN Securtiy Council does effect it then doesn't effect it. It does effect it by the UN helping out the world when they don't even need it. But then again I  think its not because there are some countries that are part of the UN that don't really care what happens to countires that don't involve them. I think what they want is a world that doesn't have all these wars or genocides. Well i think thats what they're goal is. Well i think there are trying to get to a world that has world peace. There not there yet but its there goal. I believe soon we will end up having a world that has world peace, just not right now. I think it could be more effective if the UN started making more of an effort, by maybe having all the countires have the veto power. So its not as hard to get them passed. I still believe that the UN should exisit, because if you think of everything that they have done then terminate them we will lose a big help to the world.

-Jessica-

 

 

 

It is my belief that the UN security council is an ineffective organization.  The UN has failed at its attempts of preserving human rights in the past, as in the case of Rwanda where relief was not provided until the genocide had ended.  Only recently has the UN authorized a peacekeeping force into Darfur, which won't deploy the full 26,000 until next year.  This force has been criticized for being too weak and will require the full cooperation of the Sudanese government.  One of the main problems with the organization, is that "peacekeeping" troops are sent into combat zones without the authority of full military operations.  This gives them very little power to stop human rights violations.  Another issue with the UN, are the economic ties. Nations are often unwilling to support resolutions and trade embargos because of the impact they would have on their countries.  Hurting one country financially can affect a myriad of others.  Eliminating veto power, however, could make the process more fair.  This would truly allow for a more democratic manner in which to make decisions, and not give one nation the power to overturn the decisions of many.  However, the UN can bring about peace and equality if it were to operate in a more effective manner.

--Patrick

 

 

 

 

 

I think the UN Security Council can be an effective organization at times. They have partially met their goal of world peace but there is much more work to be done.  Although they lack the ability to respond to national crisis' with speed and power, they have kept peace in many regions of the world. The UN Security Council have sent troops to keep peace and resolve issues in the Middle East and countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Liberia, and have contributed to non-proliferation acts. Issues in countries such as Sudan were not taken seriously by the UN until recently, when they've planned to send 26,000 troops to the Darfur region. The UN Security Council will need to gain more political power to be able to act on terrible events that could take place in the future. This political power will increase their response time and will give then innumerable power. In no way should the UN be abolished. They should continue to exist and through time will most likely become more effective with keeping world peace and responding to international crisis'.

-Zak-

 

I think that the U.N. Security Council in and of itself would be an effective orginization if they recognized genocide sooner than they have in the past. I believe this delay is cuased by their hopes of world peace. They don't want genocide, and it may be they're denying it for as long as possible. Besides this, the U.N. does it's job to try and protect against genocide. What would make the U.N. a more effective orginization is a faster response to genocide and other crimes that the U.N. pledged to protect against. Without a clear international head acting as the leader to protect the world, even with its flaws, is to seal the world's demise. The U.N. does do alot, and I think alot of people take it for granted. --------------------Nick K.--------------------------

 

 

Yes I do believe the UN is a effective organization and I think it does a pretty good job when they get involved in a situation. As of the moment no they obviously don’t have world peace for many reasons, there’s just to many people who don’t like each other. To name one would be alquida and the United States. A problem that I find with the U.N. right now is the inability to react to situations that are unclear like whether there’s genocide or not in Sudan right now. To make the UN more effective they could make their decisions quicker to help situations like this one in Sudan. They should also offer more aid to these country’s in distress so they can help prevent countries from going haywire like Sudan and Tanzania. Yes we indeed need the UN to day because all countries have to have a common ground with all other countries but the UN needs to makes changes to be more effective like the ones stated above.

 

© Collin©                                                                                                                                                                         

    I do not think the UN is effective. There are many situations where they don't step in to help and if they do, its usually too late. I don't think they are living up to their goal of world peace either because there are still so many wars and battles going on today. One of the problems with the UN is how they define genocide. No one really knows where to draw the line of genocide, so many people are still suffering but the UN isnt doing anything to help. If they want to be a more effective group, they should do more research before they decide they cant help out or its still not "bad enough" to help.             ***PAIGE***

 

The UN Security Council is an effective organization. Being more aware of the problems thats facing the world can improved. Taking action dealing with contries and the conflicts in them more quicky can also be improved. The UN has a purpose. The UN may not be taking action as quickly but over all it's doing the job it was created to do even if it takes time to elimanate the problem.

_________Janetta___________

 

 

---

this is practice