Does the U.N. have a rule to not intefere?

The UN can not do anything in the world, because the world’s biggest thug nations, russia, china and the “united states” have veto power.

In 1959, two million people died of smallpox.

The UN took on the job of eradicating smallpox.

In 1979 zero people on Earth had smallpox.

I have mixed feelings about interferring in other countries. Overall, I support the existence of the UN.

Why do you blame the UN? Individual countries interfere with their native populations, not the UN. The relationship between the Canadian government and First Peoples does not involve the UN.

The UN can’t support a standing army or collect tax because it has no authority. It is not a superior government to any of the individual member states. Governments are bodies with a monopoly on violence, i.e., a military and a policing ability. The UN can’t do that.

I think your question made more sense when it was worded in the context of a Prime Directive. It’s an interesting thought.

The UN is what The United States was purported to be at it’s formation: a coalition of like-minded but largely self-governing bodies united to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Ultimately the equivalent of the American Civil War is probably inevitable, with millions/billions (if not the race) dying.

@ibstubro THe UN was never to provide for the common defense, that would mean all of the defense forces of individual countries would be subordinate to the UN. It never has had policing power except in situations approved by the Security COuncil and subject to veto by any one of the Big Five.

The evolution of the United States from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was done from the realization that the Articles of Confederation did not work for the new country nor did it work for the new states; thus the Constitution to construct a Federal Government that was above the individual States. But individual Nation States will not agree to that construct with a supreme UN.

@ragingloli The fact that the big 5 have veto power is why the UN is doomed. For instance, there is no way that the UN will say/do anything about the Israeli/Palestine conflict ever; the US won’t allow that to happen. Nearly every other nation agrees to a minimum standard of living for it’s citizens, except dictatorships, and the US.

@zenvelo Correct. Unlike the states versus the US Federal government, there is no chance in hell that the US would ever cooperate in the slightest with any sort of government above it. Hell, many states and one major political party won’t even listen to the federal government, so the only way we would ever even see a “world government” like that is if the rest of the world teamed up against us…. and they just well might at this rate.

The UN—all five security votes, at least—supported the war against Mu’ammar Ghaddafi in Libya. Not all UN members participated (it was mostly NATO) but the war relied on a UN declaration to defend civilians against Ghaddafi. The war ended quickly and with few civilian casualties. (The chaos afterward is terrible—but not as bad as Syria).

The UN will probably support international airstrikes against the Islamic State once Iraq forms a new government.

While often useless, there are extreme cases where even the US, Russia, and China can agree that some people just need to get bombed.

The only rule the U.N. has is to keep that building in New York, Have their dignitaries live in N.Y. with immunity and party hardy at our expense. The U.N. is a do nothing organization that caters to people who should be imprisoned.