Sorry Liz, We don't see the UN from your elite position.

We see it from side on, & we see the most corrupt organisation on earth, worthy of nothing but total destruction.

The only use it has or can serve is as an example of what we must never do again.

Whatever faults aside, where would the world be without the UN?
Who would be trying to keep some resemblance of peace?

Perhaps elements of the UN have been corrupted. Have been.
Perhaps bad elements can be weeded out.

The UN is not entirely the culprit. For example the UN is not being informed of true information from Australia, not even the Australian people are.

Anyway, what is the alternative to try to sustain world food supply and maintain world peace?

The UN is the tool the Bankers are using to bring in their "New World Order" of a totalitarian one world Govt and our pollies have signed off on this via Agenda 21.

The UN is a criminal organisation and the sooner it dies the better. Australia should withdraw from the UN and so should the USA and UK.

Firstly it's an organisation of *States*, not "nations". See how the statists keep confusing the state with society, the elite sub-group monopolosing power with the broad mass of the people whom they subjugate and parasitise?

Secondly, notice how it's starting point and end point is always the State, rather than the real locus of human value, which is the individual, through which, and only through which all group action is possible?

Thirdly reason both the League of Nations and the UN came into existence was because of wars between *states* because of protective trade policies. Trying to make your state economically self-sufficient is a never-ending fad among leftists. Like all socialism, it would be better called anti-socialism. If you are a country - like, say Germany - and you're trying to be economically self-sufficient in a world of economically protectionists states, then the only way you can get things you can't produce yourself, is to physically take over countries that do.

Fourthly, it's not the UN that preventing wars and rumours of wars. It's the ability of the people of countries to trade freely with each other, unhindered by their governments.

Fifthly, in case you haven't noticed, all of the members of the UN pursue and agenda of unlimited government power. Just one program alone, Agenda 21, is just a re-run of all the failed nostrums of socialism in the 20th century.

Sixthly, the inflexible response of statists everywhere, when faced with the failure of statist interventions, is to assume the problem is not enough interventions, and to launch another coercive attack on society. The UN is a magnet for exactly the kinds of statists that caused all the problems of the 20th century that gave rise to the UN in the first place. It represents the dreadful idea that the people are just to be moulded, the dictates of government are omnipotent, and the legislators infallible.

Seventhly, notice how the statists never mention the aggressive violence that is the basis of the existence of all states, and which they think is the basis of the good society? For example, all over the world, *people* have always valued men more than women for some things, and women more than men for other things. Whether or not you agree with it, Elizabeth Shaw believes that people should be physically attacked to force them to obey her opinions about what people's values should be.

Elizabeth, at what stage, short of shooting people, do you renounce the use of aggressive violence to enforce the gender policies you advocate?

If the UN had full rein it would cause the deaths of thousands of millions of people with another re-run of the socialist policies it is itching to implement, and only prevented by people's non-compliance with its wishes.

JF Aus
It is simply idiotic to think that the UN is sustaining world food supply. That is being done by farmers - remember them: the productive class? - impeded, burdened and opposed in thousands of ways by the states ruling over them, aided and abetted by the UN and the plain nutty belief that the state is the fountain of all moral and economic good.

@ Jardiune K. Jardine.

Socialism must be alive and well in Australia because Australia is not coming forward with information a proper originally intended functional UN would require.
Australia could be in there correcting the bad situation that Jardine K and other on OLO are stating.

I am absolutely aware that information of substance about the real devastated state of ocean seafood supply is not reaching the UN and so without solutions it must be expected the UN cannot sustain world seafood supply.
Agriculture alone cannot sustain world food supply. Farmers need affordable fertilizer and feedmeal in order to make end product affordable to people in need. The ocean used to supply such requirement.

Farmers in Australia are doing it tough, especially because they are not being informed about the real future and therefore real value of their land and industry.
Property rights are even being impacted by green nonsense about farmers polluting the ocean, while sewage nutrient pollution is being spewed daily into ocean ecosystem waters, politically unnoticed especially by the ABC.
The ABC should be the media communicating problems in order to find relevant solutions.

Aus farmers also sometimes need subsidies in order to compete with subsidized food coming into Australia from overseas, plus there is subsidised overseas farmed produce filling overseas markets, in competition with Aust farmed supply.

If Australia is to work toward strengthening the UN then surely the truth about real food supply problems and impacts should be reported to the UN, especially by a food producing nation such as Australia.
But reaching even local MP’s or getting a truthful dialogue underway with government departments seems impossible.
A good example, the FIRB does not possess criteria to understand fish protein supply links to foreign buy up of the Aus export beef industry, dairy industry too. The FIRB is virtually letting it happen. So is our ABC, airwaves packed with CO2 nonsense instead.

Why just blame the UN?

At least the UN has some grasp of need to sustain, or did the Aust ABC come up with that focus?
At least the UN is trying.