Do we really want or need the UN?
What good has it ever achieved in real terms?
What good has membership of it ever done for Australia?
What have we got in return for the our billions of dollars we've gifted it across the years?
Yes, in the field of health and disaster relief it has achieved a few things, but the simple fact is that far more could have been achieved by other charities etc if they'd been given even HALF the money the UN efforts cost.
The UN is expensive, it costs us all millions, billions world-wide, yet it serves very little purpose other than as a stage for prancing bureaucrats, and VERY expensive ones at that. The UN is basically the Golden Trough and the feeding frenzy there is obscene, IMO.
In confrontational situations the UN is worse than useless, ask the survivors in Rwanda if you doubt that.
When you look at the UN spending the vast majority of it goes to supporting extravagant lifestyles for it's "officers", and they quite literally waste the majority of the rest. The UN was born of a good Ideal, but it was doomed from the start, Idealism carries little weight with the Baddies of this world.
The various pronouncements of the UN have actually caused Australia more problems than anything else, just look at refugees if you want an example.
So, I ask, should we cancel our membership, stop throwing money away on it?
It's not as if we would suffer at all, we wouldn't lose any friends, we wouldn't be penalised in any real way, no-ones going to declare war on us for leaving, are they

Dear Bruce,

The United Nations provides a forum for world opinion and a
mechanism for conflict resolution. There are international
laws that specify the rights and obligations that nations
have toward one another - particularly with respect to
aggression.

Over the years, the United Nations has intervened successfully
in a number of wars (in Korea for example) and in several
situations that might have led to war (Cuba, Berlin).

A major difficulty with international peace-making of course
is that compliance with the resolutions of the United Nations
and the rulings of its World Court are voluntary, for no
country is willing to surrender its sovereignty to an
international body.

The United Nations is most effective,
when the superpowerare able to agree
on a course of action and mobilise their blocs to
support it.

Even so, the organisation provides an influential forum
for world opinion, and while it does not always prevent war,
it surely helps make it less likely.

I'm with you there Bruce, but I was thinking of Kosovo when deciding it's usefulness.

Foxy the problem is that the UN is controlled by the tin pot minor dictators. That forum you see as useful I see as useful only to delay any action that we should be taking.

If it had been up to the UN the people of Kosovo would still be suffering. How many died while the talkfest at the UN was waffling along? It would be in the tens of thousands.

The UN is not only nonproductive, it has in fact proved counterproductive in every emergency since the Korean war. Surely that is long enough to judge it's usefulness, & decide it has absolutely none.

Foxy, do you really believe that without the UN as a stage none of the statements, deals or arrangements would happen?
Leaders would still release their pronouncements and the media would still spread it, countries would still talk to each other publicly and privately, alliances made and broken, the only difference would be no-one would be raking billions out of the world economy to do so.
Bear in mind we're talking about an organisation that has an annual headquarters budget running into BILLIONS per year, of which Oz contributes over $20,000,000 pa,and that's just to keep the NY boys n girls in the style to which they've chosen to become accustomed.
Every time they then choose to become involved in a situation they immediately put their hands out again, and the bill is always inflated by their "operating costs".
Despite the reiteration of the Ideal by Foxy I must ask, are we getting value for money?
Simple answer? NO.

Dear Hasbeen and Bruce,

An important element in any peace process is the
international community and its mechanisms for
restraining conflict among its members.
Trade, travel, and telecommunications have made
the nations of the modern world more interdependent
than ever before. Yet today's societies entered the
nuclear age with political institutions inherited
from a previous era. The human population is spread
among a series of sovereign independent states -
most ot them with their own armed forces - and so
there is a built in potential for warfare whenever
two nations have conflicting interests.

In the past, actually before the twentieth century there
were few institutionalised ways for hostile nations
to achieve peaceful settlements. When negotiations
took place, they often occurred only after a war - for
the purpose of agreeing to a peace treaty that would
specify the spoils for the victor.

Although the structure of international peace-making
may still be rudimentary, it now offers infinitely better
prospects for helping nations avoid war.

Particularly in a world where all nations face a common
threat of direct or indirect involvement in
nuclear warfare, some reliable method is needed to limit
conflicts among sovereign states.

As I stated in my previous post - the United Nations does
provide a forum for world opinion and a mechanism for
conflict resolution. In my opinion, while that does
not always prevent war - it surely helps make it less
likely

The UN a "forum for world opinion"? If that were the case we would get the chance to vote for them but we don't do we?

Progressives see democracy as optional!