Hacker News Reader

Comment by tuyguntn | Hacker News Reader

we ended up in such situation because there are usually no consequences of governments doing bad to their citizens. UN is a joke. All sanctions are applied only against Russia, but for any other case/country what governments are usually doing are cheap words: "condemning/concerned/we are deeply ..." that's all.

There is no consensus inside UN on what is good and what is bad for people, countries have veto rights, which shouldn't exist if there were clear guidelines on what is allowed and what is not. Please show us some real actions and make authoritarian regimes feel pain for doing harm. Shutdown all the incoming and outgoing flights to/from Belarus, including transits and goods.

View on HN

> UN is a joke.

I just finished reading "Washington Bullets" [1]. (Part of) It is a crash course into how and why institutions like UN, IMF etc. are they way they are.

And honestly, I just feel paralyzed after reading the book. These institutions just don't have the clout by design.

[1]: https://www.librarything.com/work/25426761/book/200164537

If the UN were used in the way you are suggesting, the UN wouldn't exist.

https://www.un.org/un70/en/content/history/index.html

> The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.

If UN is committed to do something good for having better living standards and human rights, then they must keep their promise and try to do something, otherwise just stop pretending being someone you are not and shutdown this organization.

I think we have passed the point in human history where local/national interests were above any other interests, now we should think about interests of humans. Be it Russian, Belarus, Palestinian, Israeli, Uighur, Armenian, black or white and so on, if human rights are violated, action should be taken and there must be a consequence for violating it, not only words thrown. US shouldn't have veto rights when rights of humans are violated, be it your best friend Israel or Saudi Arabia.

You can think what you want, but the reality is that the majority of the world still lives in poverty and ignorance, with all that it entails (and even the well-educated are not exactly guaranteed to have the same priorities as you, e.g. Israel). If you go around invading every human-right-violatin' piece of land, very soon you won't have an army.

The UN has its issues, like the League of Nations before that, but it's still a place where the world tries to communicate and (occasionally) solve (some) problems. It has lasted longer than the LoN precisely because it has not taken the "activist" bent of its predecessor. It cannot solve everything, maybe even anything, but it's still better to have such an assembly than not having it. If anything, it provides some legitimacy to humanitarian efforts, when enough countries in the Security Council agree on a deployment.

> If you go around invading every human-right-violatin

I am not saying invading, what I am saying is taking real actions by sanctioning all equally, not just sanctioning Russia because some EU countries or the US doesn't like it, but also sanction Saudi Arabia and Israel for violating human rights.

It’s impossible for the UN to both (a) grant membership to every broadly recognized independent country in the world and (b) consistently act in support of human rights.

UN is a forum where countries can talk to each other in a more or less moderated way. But I can see your point - UN is useless when it comes to dealing with dictators, stopping crimes against humanity while they happen, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com