Why the United Nations is obsolete
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.พ. 2024
- 👉 Register for AI & ChatGPT workshop for FREE: link.growthschool.io/CRC
👉 100% Discount for first 1000 people + $500 worth bonuses 🔥
👉 Become the top 1% professional by learning ChatGPT & AI today 🔥
❤️ Reshare this with your friends who will need this 😇
The #UN no longer reflects the complex realities of today’s #multilateralism, which is why many see it as a dying institution.
Support CaspianReport
✔ TH-cam membership ► / @caspianreport
✔ Patreon ► / caspianreport
✔ PayPal ► www.paypal.me/caspianreport
✔ Merchandise ►teespring.com/stores/caspianr...
Crypto endorsement
✔ Bitcoin ► 1MwRNXWWqzbmsHova7FMW11zPftVZVUfbU
✔ Ether ► 0xfE4c310ccb6f52f9D220F25Ce76Dec0493dF9aA0
✔ Bitcoin Cash ► 1BKLti4Wq4EK9fsBnYWC91caK7NZfUhNw9
Join us on Facebook or Twitter
✔ Twitter ► / caspianreport
✔ Facebook ► / caspianreport
✔ My equipment and editing software ► www.amazon.com/shop/caspianre...
Watch CaspianReport in other languages
✔ Spanish ► / historiageopol%c3%adtica
✔ Russian ► / thecuriouscat
#ad #sponsored
👉 Register for AI & ChatGPT workshop for FREE: link.growthschool.io/CRC
👉 100% Discount for first 1000 people + $500 worth bonuses 🔥
👉 Become the top 1% professional by learning ChatGPT & AI today 🔥
❤ Reshare this with your friends who will need this 😇
Thanks Shirvan. Free Palestinians from colonial settler apartheid war crimes.
Jesus loves you ❤️ Please turn to him and repent before it's too late. The end times described in the Bible are already happening in the world.
@@phlezktravels Jesus loves you ❤️ Please turn to him and repent before it's too late. The end times described in the Bible are already happening in the world.
Free the world from Arab bigotry@@phlezktravels
Freaking love your content, you're still as fresh as when I first discovered you, here for many more years I hope.
I think another interesting way to see the quote "not meant to bring us to heaven but rather to save us from hell", is that the UN shouldn't be enforcing social 'utopias' or determining what is good or bad. It should simply be making sure we don't kill each other
The social work the UN does on hunger, cultural preservation, etc is where it does the most good though
Sometimes, "not enforcing utopia" and "make sure we don't kill each other" are the same thing.
Sometimes the only way to stop nations from destroying each other is enforcing some sort of social utopia :^
Conflicts do not happen out of nothing
@@biaispravdabut the UN has been very usless to prevent conflicts even when signs were very clear of an incoming war, from the falklands war, the Ukraine war and the constant Palestinian Israle wars.
Also the fact that countries like the US, UK and Israel don´t seem to ever get sanctions of their war crimes and violantions of human rights despite ONG like international Amensty International and sometimes the UN itself(with their recomndations) makes the smallers countries don´t really trust the UN
Absolutely.
«Two small countries fight, UN intervenes and the war ends. A small and a big countries fight, UN intervenes and the small country ends. Two big countries fight, UN intervenes and UN ends.»
👍
I don’t think under the 2nd and 3rd case, UN can intervene.
Just watch Russia and Ukraine, Israel (US) and Palastine.
The world might as well end at that point, since most big countries have nukes
@@adinarapratama5607makes you wish for a nuclear winter eh?
@@adinarapratama5607 that's not true at all dude. "Most big countries have nukes" lmao. Nonsense. Land or population you speak nonsense.
The problem with the UN is the numerous countries that don’t share the UN founder’s belief that peace and cooperation are worthy goals, but instead believe that war is bad only when you lose, and that cooperation is good only when you can totally cheat the other guy.
The bane of humanity. Wouldn't it be nice if there were no countries nor conflicts and instead we would cooperate globally and constructively to basically solve all our problems, travel the stars and get a shot at spreading life everywhere and preserving it to the end of time? Well, apparently to these kind of people, humankind is nothing more than something to be toyed with, as conflicts don't even improve the quality of life their citizens have.
In other words, Realpolitik prevails, but it always has.
The UN was founded on a lie,and they were aware of it since the start.
They even killed Dag Hammarskjöld the only one that actually cared, because he believed in the lie,and was making alot of good work in diffusing conflicts and cleaning house (he was hunting corruption inside the UN,the final straw for them).
are there countries that share these founder's beliefs and goals? be honest.
UN founder didn't even belief that, if they believed it, there wont be veto power, there wont be UN resolution to divide palestine and give 55% of the land to 11% demography (european israel settlers), they over extended its jurisdiction.
UN build on deception and supremacy of few countries. When the balance of power become more multipolar, its doom to breakdown. Unless the current power let go and accept multipolarity.
The issue is that the concept of so-called "legally binding" only works if it can be enforced - which means military force. The security council basically represents that - countries with the strongest military on earth.
Strongest militaries on the planet plus UK and France
@@fernandough2117France has the strongest military in Europe though and both have nukes.
@@fernandough2117 The UK has more ability to project power on a different continent than any nation except the US and maybe China. Nations like Japan and India have large populations and big economies but you watch how little that means if the war-zone is 10,000kms away and you have no near-by bases or experience in long distance logistics.
@@leojohn1615 UK is nothing without US logistics. Very weak. At least the french have a nuclear powered carrier and they are pathetic.
@@kotzpenner France is a weakling. It should have to share its vote with Italy and Brazil on a rotating basis and UK with India and Fiji
Have you tried turning it off and back on again?
Genius!
Yes, they did, back in 45
Yhea we're moving there
Well base on the WW2 update procedure , step1 which would be what you said, but you cant "shut down" it only entering braindead mode, then step2 requires taking the whole system apart and and putting back together again and hope it gets lucky, we can know for sure that the emotional function defined as "loss" can trigger this program called "empathy " which should contribute to starting the new "We are united as humanity as a whole" update
That’s actually not a bad idea. It works for computers and tvs and video game consoles
Removing the veto power of the 5 permanent members sounds all fair and dandy - but practically speaking it would just cause them to ignore or withdraw participation altogether when they get outvoted. Those members having 'disproportionate' power simply reflects the reality of the situation. Giving them less say in a toothless organization won't change that reality.
To an extent. But as an example, the British are kind of a has been and their presence on the council does not reflect the realities on the ground.
The different blocks must have a representative. Not the nations
france and UK shouldnt be there anymore. That doesnt reflect the current reality.
It would not change anything if UK and France had their veto power removed.
1. USA would just do the vetoing on their behalf.
2. If the UK & France veto was removed, what should replace it? An EU vote? You think that would make a big difference?
@@berkekadircelik6282France and the UK might not be great empires any more but are still major economic, military and nuclear powers. Being subordinate to the US doesn't change that
On a lighter note, I once worked on two ILO-UNDP projects in Indonesia. Thankfully, our work was seen a huge success. The big ILO boss was an Italian and visited us one day from Geneva. I dutifully served him up a cup of coffee from our humble facilities. That got him started to share an internal joke that went something like this. There were two lions that met crossing the bridge that led to Geneva. The lion that entering Geneva was thin and hungry. The lion that was leaving Geneva was well fed but looked dejected and depressed. The thin lion asked the stout lion why he would want to leave Geneva? He looked so well! The lion confessed that life was great until it wasn't. "I camped out at the ILO headquarters and ate an official every day...and no one ever noticed. But, then one day I made a huge mistake. I ate the coffee boy."
😂😂
I think you meant Geneva, which is where your organisation is headquartered ;-)
@@abelsuisse9671 Thanks. You are right. My bad. I'll correct.
happy to know your work was fruitful, thank you for your service
The only reason the UN was conceived was to have a platform where even enemies would be able to continue to talk to each other even during times of war, in an attempt to prevent further escalation or endless conflicts (results may vary).
It pretty much literally is a debate club.
The UN is never meant to be a world government, or problem solver.
The reason many people are disappointed or disillusioned in the UN is that it's been portrayed in the media for decades to be much more than a debate club, so the expectations of most people don't align with the actual function of the UN.
not necessarily an entire country is in complete hate of the UN because it supported and probably supporting terrorists who want to eradicate them.
and that's in addition to it's complete Bias of it's Chinese, north Korean, Saudi, Qatari, Cuban and Iranian lead human rights council.
Funny the UN itself doesn't act like a "debate club"....it acts more like a judgement club with no means to enforce that judgement..
@@ameyas7726 and a judgment club run by criminals no less
what about having smaller regions with their own laser shields and give everyone a steak in their region.
It's worth mentioning that the times people point to for the UN being the most impactful (ie the Korean War) were also times the Soviet Union boycotted it and China was represented by the kumintang
impactful, but not moral. South korea was a facist dictatorship up until 1990s. DPRK was democratic before the war
True.
I think a better statement would be "the times the UN were impactful were when the US duped its citizens into proxy wars."
@@Bagginsess Saving the entire country of South Korea from being a shitrole like the north and instead being a supereconomic powerhouse isnt exactly a bad thing
Neither was saving a entire country again in the case of Kuwait. Or Kosovo
@@rodrigopaim82 allowing globalization, offshoring, and needless government parenting IS a bad thing...
You know what they say:
A broken chair is right three times a day.
Who says that😂
As they say : Better to have delicious hummus in mouth than in the hair 😅
a broken clock can never be right because when it is right it will immediately become wrong again
*Broken Clock
@@ForeverFree767
« Quand t’as du pain su’ ‘a planche, fa’s des sandwichs » - Capitaine Hadock
Just scrolled through your video list and saw that you oldest videos date back 13 years. Impressive.
Still one of my top 3 channels on the platform. Deserved.
What are the other two?
@@user-hi6dt9yn3t Another one is "Like Stories of Old"
It's pure gold.
Tell me one of yours!
I think there has always been unrealistic expectations surrounding the UN's capacity to ensure World Peace. How can you make 190+ countries agree on complex issues that centuries old? Rather than see it as THE tool to fix it all, we should accept it as A tool among many in the toolbox to help this planet.
It was created by the Zionists to use it to bring in a world government
UN laws are more like guidelines at this point. Pretty much all countries either ignore them or only use them as a tool to criticise others.
All countries? You mean USA and Russia alone?
Everyone else respect its
@@tacioob2337 The UK has disregarded numerous rulings, to begin with. Don't get me started on Israel, China, etc. The UN as it is = rules for the weak, no rules for the powerless.
@@tacioob2337 No.
Everyone uses UN flaws and loopholes to their advantage.
The entire idea of "War Crimes" and "Honorable/Humane Warfare" is just downright stupid, Given the chance or need, ANY Nation would use whatever it had to to defend itself or secure it's interests, By any means necessary.
@@user-pt5xc1pp4z nations didnt us poison gas in WW2 and we scrapped through the cold war without nuclear annihilation. The UN is super dumb but the idea of some level of international diplomacy and norms for conflict resolution is not.
As a person from the "global south" I can say that I definitely do not see the UN as an arm of sustainable development and economic reforms.
What do you think of the term "global south"? Ive felt as if its used more as a political tool in the west to make other western politicians see them as a separate entity/enemy rather than unique countries with unique relations with different western states.
Basically i mean that it makes western powers have a more unified foreign policy with "the south".
@@illliiiiillliii6265 bro nobody is out here scheming like that, life is not a movie for what purpose would a politician use a term to obfuscate the very thing they are responsible for managing? What is the purpose of this unification and is that all it takes to brainwash every other politician? I could think of 100 better strategies to achieve that goal, but i can't see a scenario where it makes sense to even do
@@LawAndTheory Where do you get the idea that the term "global south" is related to BRICS. It is the rhetorical continuation of "third world" as that term became uncouth and also factually incorrect after the cold war ended. To be more precise, both terms try to split developed an undeveloped nations. The terms "developed" and "undeveloped" are, however, just a continuation of the outdated perspective that was once expressed by the terms "civilized" and "uncivilized". I would not be suprised if "global south" will be replaced with anohter term soon.
@@LawAndTheory im no expert but my understanding was the china and russia (brics) were part of the global east while south meant basically all of the other flip flop states (i suppose brazil and india are a bit flipfloppy) that would eather have to lean to the huge power of the west or to the huge power of the east or somehow form one or more coalition with themselves. Those were the sort of narratives i heard our elites make in the past 2 years when talking about this new term of global south. Well its a synonym for the 3rd world basically.
@@illliiiiillliii6265 Yhe you are right, I am from Europe and a lot of YOUNG people here are starting to realize that we do that a a lot, we compartmentalize everything. It has to end, for us to truly be able to unite. I dream for that day when humanity willingly unites under a single banner. Unfortunately I don't know if I will live to see it, mb aliens would do it XD, we just need an external threat that is so big we cannot ignore mb.
The UN is a relic from the Cold War era, hence the reason why the permanent members have so much power, at that time, they were de facto, the only empires in the world, but after the decolonization that happened in Africa and the fall of the USSR, the absurd power that those old world relics have makes the UN completely incongruous with the modern reality
Seeing how Russia under Putah strives to become the USSR once more, perhaps the western powers should reconstitute colonialism in Africa. All Africans want to reach Europe anyway instead of building their own countries so why not instead bring Europe to them once more. 😅❤
@@EtnoZam He's not trying to make Russia an Empire again, He's simply trying to save the state itself from imploding...Russia is extremely weak in many aspects and has tons of issues, We always see our foes like Russia or China as these mighty titans, when in reality they are in worse conditions than us a lot of the time.
@@EtnoZam europeans sucked the blood out of africa. Now why do you want to bring back that age?
@@EtnoZamdon't be racist
those 5 countries still hold very nearly all of the worlds real military and economic power.
Thanks 👍 for all the hard work you put into researching all of this information and then putting it into a very watchable short documentary.
I learnt a lot. Thank you 👏👏👏
I don't see the 5 permanent members of the Security Council giving up their veto. They represent 2% of the UN's membership, but 46% of its budget. Do you really think that the 5 would gladly fund operations contrary to their own interest? I don't think so.
True
Nor should they give up that power... Half the UN general assembly are nations that can BARELY control their own populations and/or are nations so developmentally behind the permanent members of the security counsel that their opinion are almost irrelevant. Idk about you, but Somalia is by no means an equal to pretty much every Western nation.
46% of the budget only because of USA & China. 😂
The UN is an international forum, not a government nor authoritative body in any real sense. It’s an arena for the battleground of diplomacy and it does that rather well. Peacekeepers are more or less a joke than an enforcement group but what they do well is send a statement of where international opinion lies. The UN isn’t meant to be strong and really shouldn’t be if it’s to have its strongest effect.
On security council members, remember that they were about power projection and still are. A sizable GDP or vast population means little if there isn’t the political power, financial will, and externally focused military to back it up. The five in those seats each have those capacities. A measure of societal cohesion and cultural export also helps
@ gideonmele1556
Well said! 👍😊
One Piece World Goverment model is Dystopia so Real UN is more better
I appreciate the issue being raised, as it promises a positive outcome. What stands out is its departure from the typical content focusing solely on specific topics like wars or conflicts in certain regions. Instead, this topic offers a refreshing divergence, encompassing a broader perspective that captivates our interest..
The first problem is that as an international forum it has no teeth because of the veto powers of the permanent security council member nations, making any discussion pointless.
Second, the internal corruption that further tarnished its reputation.
The UN is super-flawed, but despite that it is still needed since there currently are no real alternatives available. Having at least one universally recognized institution, where the representatives of countries can meet simply to talk to each other in a relatively stable and predictable manner, is vital for lowering the risk of conflicts breaking out simply due to misunderstandings and miscommunication.
Don't ambassadors serve that function?
Alternatives: multi-channel diplomacy within developed nations upholding human rights to a certain threshold.
+100500 !
@@kevinbyrne4538Ambassadors work well for one-to-one communication in private.
However, this doesn't work if a nation wants to say something publicly and make sure other nations definitely heard them.
@@Ilyak1986 well, the UN is one of those channels. Also, one of its issues rn is that the "developed" nations have too much power in it. Having "undeveloped" countries have to go hat in hand to one of the big 5 promotes the kind of factionalism that the UN was designed to prevent.
When I think of the United Nations, I think I want one of those license plates/tags that lets you park anywhere.
You under credit genuine efforts by the UN, like phasing out leaded gas or delivering basic medical goods worldwide. Just because one aspect of the Un is flawed doesn't mean the UN is "obsolete"
Compared to the other crises it fails to address, those are small potatoes in comparison.
You do understand that Smallpox, prior to its elimination, killed millions a year, right?@@demon2441
Ive been a bit critical of caspians videos thr past few years but this one is a refreshing gem. Back to caspians roots. Detailed yet summarized breakdown of the structure and a balanced analysis of the problems it faces. Thanks caspian
Common misconception: The UN is no world government and it does not need a lot of power. The UN is a structure that allows countries to communicate and cooperate with each other that would not do so without the UN. Even the communication of disagreements is important and shows that the UN works.
It *does* need a lot of power. So much so that it can subsume the sovereignty of every country on Earth and finally unite Humanity into a single global government.
@@2hotflavored666having a single world government is dumbest idea. World is so diverse that there can never be a consensus if a world government is formed and it will cause anarchy everywhere. Current nation states can govern better than that
It is a world government
@@mihirpingle5067 Which is why it's better at first to give high levels of autonomy to every nation, like a confederation similar to the EU. And then over decades and centuries develop a shared Human identity like the EU is currently doing, leading to gradual federalization process and eventual abolishment of the nation states.
Well said.
After decades making the same argument people never learn. History is a great teacher.
I'm a huge fan of the channel but feel this video missed the mark. The UN is in serious need of updating and it's influence has dwindled in the last few decades for various resons. None of which are mentioned here. Plus I see the same misconception I see in many people who go for the easy shots at rhe UN: "it has no power". Well, it's nit meant to have power. It's meant to promote dialogue. And so many other things this video missed or are mentioned in a way that is just to prove the initial point. Lacks actual analyais.
🎯
Without power, UN is pointless, just like League of Nations before it.
This comment needs to be seen further up.
What are the reasons for the dwindling of influence?
@@erikonthefloor Lack of power is most obvious one. UN can't really enforce it's authority, so if you are country like US, you can simply ignore them and do what you want with basically zero bad consequences.
Excellent analysis! I love how you have covered both the negatives of the present structure of the UN and the merits of its existence. You gained a new subscriber today 🙂
14:34 The Blue Berets also openly engage in child sex trafficking. The rules for raping and/or selling children for sex are laid out in their handbook. Apparently in some perpetually warring countries where they perpetually operate, child rape is culturally accepted and the UN sees it as a fringe benefit to the mercenaries assigned to those countries that are perpetually at war.
Africa is crazy
Source: trust me bro.
The UN has always been a place where inspired speaches can be heard along side corrupt nonsense. It's strength is disaster relief but, it is seldom significant in a political sense. It's just a place where you can hear what nations might be thinking. It's a bit of a safety valve. Now it seems UN finances need to be more carefully scrutinized.
this is some of your best work, great video 10/10
On the UNSC, European nations also have disproportional power. They have 3 elected seats and 2/3 (wether or not you count Russia) permanent seats. Yet asia has a much bigger population and only 1 permanent seat and 2 elected seats.
I think UNO will become another League of Nation.
Ah yes the world renowned peace keeping organization: UNO
They have become what they were meant to prevent. It's already the league of Nations 2.0
Please dont associate the UN with the League of Nations. The LON was far more effective the UN.
Good game, I play it often.
It already is another League of Nations.
It’s scary that some of the problems that plagued the League of Nations is also endangering the United Nations. The UN is the only global body we have and so vital, it needs some serious resurrecting but as the world fractures more it’s even more neccsary.
The problems of the UN reflect the problems of Mankind, as a species - an Immature and Failed Species.
the UN was always a absolutely hopeless idea. There is no negotiation with militant authoritarian regimes the only diplomacy that Russia or NK will abide by is that which comes from the end of a rifle.
there is no negotiation with terrorist gangs like "israel"@@leojohn1615
Global bodies are not a positive thing. Especially when trying to manage global trade and culture. The IMF is an abomination that shouldn't exist. That aspect is the worst. And the security Council would always be a joke.
Now the biggest aspect of the un that still matters is being the main mechanism by which people plan for an eventual world governance. Any move preventing global political and economic centralization, is good one in so far as it stops that global governance goal
@@leojohn1615 no, that is US. You are free to compare number of "interventions and campaigns", US vs Russia, especially since the end of Cold war.
The power disparity in the UNSC is a feature, not a bug.
A system in which you require a majority vote with 200 unique perspectives is one that will never accomplish anything. People believe the UN is a tool to get what they want, instead of a tool for dialogue.
Excellently detailed & described. To sum it up all; a wonderful conclusion 💯
Very glad to see this! Proves one of my favorite points on my Master thesis ten years ago
Nobody read it
@@itsnotatoobernobody asked for your opinion
What was that point?
Can you give us that thesis? Maybe a sneak peek? I'm interested.
Interesting what's all about?
First thing that needs to go is the permanent security council members. What a ridiculous system.
One nation one vote should be the second
Cope
why would the great powers stay then?
The system would not get any less ridiculous without permanent security council members. I'd wager the amount of BS would even increase.
how come france gets a vote and india doesnt. if u see that and still defend the system, sir ur ilogical@@nwahally
Amazing time to drop this video, Long waited
The league of nations worked for a while after World War 1 but over the years became more and more powerless and obsolete to do anything to stop another world war.
The United Nations worked for a while after World War 2 to ease the tensions of the Cold war but since the fall of the Soviet Union and the eastern block it has become more and more obsolete and powerless to stop a growing tension and war from becoming larger and larger.
The problem was they gave the LoN power at all, and didn't give it the ability to prpperly enforce its rules... Idk about you, but I don't want the Western world being influenced by the culturally backwards Middle East, or a plethora of other countries and regions that are fundamentally less developed. The UN and LoN should ONLY exist, (or have existed) to create dialog, and keep open diplomatic channels. The LoN failed because it attempted to create a power that ignored regional boarders while also not have a strong enforcment wing.
The reason why the UN between the 1950-60s was considered highly effective was because it had a strong enforcment branch (blue helmets.) And was mainly under the control of the Western powers and its allies as the USSR was boycotting it, and the CCP hadn't been given a seat yet.
Brazil is the outlier for the Security council for not being a permanent member, it was supposed to be one, then it said no because it was too expensive.
India deserves to be a member of security council more than Brazil, Brazil is neither a nuclear power, nor it has the 4th biggest military and it is also not the most populous nation.
But I think Brazil also deserves one. Seats should be increased
Why would anybody trust corrupt nations like Brazil and India on the security council? India is a political puppet of Russia and China anyway and Brazil may aswell be.
Brazil did help the allies in WW2, which therefore be rewarded a permanent member seat
@@chat4783 British Indian military was the largest volunteer Army ever in history, it contributed 2.5 million soldiers in ww2, award us a seat too
@@Arkham-kq9ufUK is the least deserving one. It's not even an independent power anymore.
India should replace UK. It's also part of commonwealth so it would be like transfer where instead of UK it's India representing it.
A functional rebranding of the Trusteeship Council could possibly allow it to oversee the administration of specified entities (rather than purely just Trust Territories)
The major issue with the Security Council seems to be its static and unchangeable set of permanent members that don't represent the current world.
If "Permanent" Members are kept, this rebranded Trusteeship Council could allow this membership type to become more dynamic (adding/removing, enforcing recusals, etc).
Of course, then "permanent member" would need a name rebranding.
There is no better report than CaspianReport.❤
Man it wouod be awesome if you make a tutorial about how you animate your maps !! Awesome work
People have been saying this for decades. I watched an episode of Yes, Minister where Sir Humphrey was making jokes about how ineffectual the UN is in the 1980s.
Jokes were being made in the
1950's after the Korean War
For all the justified criticisms of the UN they still play a vital role in the sectors of politics, economics, cultural and health sectors. For example The WHO managed to completely eradicate the once deadly smallpox and is on the way to eradicate Polio. The quote you mentioned, "The United Nations was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell." is apt.
I would hope this decade will be the decade where the UN tries to reform itself to position itself in this new multipolar world.
UN exits to organize co-operation if members agree. To expect the UN to prevent wars/conflicts is unrealistic. Not an UN job!
Thanks for getting a great sponsor (:
Incredible stuff as always!
indonesia and Australia are apparently developing a defense pact... this would be an amazing video as it signals a major diplomatic shift in the South east Region, particularly in the growth of Indonesia in the past 30 years into something powerful enough to merit such a deal on the international stage with a country who has allies well worth bargaining with.
are we? As an Aussie everyone I know thinks of Indonesia as our second biggest security threat only slightly behind China.
@@leojohn1615 Or you people are stuck in the past and thinks we're still in a millitary dictatorship just like in the 90's. Grow up and see that we're not a threat. Average Indonesian have no ill feel towards Australia, except the time where you spied on our president (Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono) back in 2013 and your PM had the AUDACITY to not apologized combine that your soldiers were openly mocking our ideology and way of life... no wonder.
@@leojohn1615 If Australia sees us a threat, then so be it. Just so you know that WE DO NOT SEE YOU AS AN ENEMY
@@worlds3061 what do most Indonesians think of Australia?
TH-cam deleted my previous comment, damn this website
How to fix the U.N.;
The U.S. withdraws from it.
i love your videos. theyre analytical instead of rhetoric and descriptive. do you also share your research materials @CaspianReport ?
Excellent, as always!
what people dont realize is that it is being done deliberately so people themselves will clamor for something more... even if it means giving up something fundamental to them.., people will willingly walk into thier prison if it will give them an illusion of justice and security..
$45 Trillion was taken from India by Britain over 200 years of rule
Not really the British as nearly all Brits have never been to India.
Britain is a cockroach compared to India today 😂
@@bristoled93You should pay a visit to the Indian section of London museum & count its worth.
Your final thoughts / metaphors are always the cherry on this geopolitical cake
0:33 nice map!
So detailed. So many lakes!!
The League of Nations 2.0 basically, hopefully the next update would be better, tho without the WW3 update, it really cant be processed
Yeah, exactly. Or perhaps 3.0. Before WW1 there were two "Hague Peace Conventions" - similar efforts. Similar end result - a global war. Only now with nukes.
France and Russia have no business being permanent members of the Security Council. They are not the most influential nations of their continents. There should be a representative nation from Africa and South America, and one single veto should not be enough to reject a vote. It should be by a majority three out of five.
The right of veto is the right of the victorious countries of the Second World War, the winners of the third will create a new organization (since the Congress of Vienna, the League of Nations, the UN are only systems that establish the rules of the game since the last world massacre)
And UK should get special place as jester of SC?
Russia is a country with largest nuclear capabilities.
Your videos are just so good C.R
Great video! Awesome animations and really clear :)
The big problem here is that in the international level, legally binding looses all meaning.
How is anything legally binding if it can't be enforced?
Like for you and me, our country's law is legally binding because they are enforced by the police or other similar governmental organisation. If we break the law, we could be arrested, tried and punished.
But you can't do that on an international level to big countries. It's like living in a neighbourhood where every house is fortified and has infinite arms and ammo. Good luck to any police trying to enforce the law here.
usually economically. Through economic sanctions
@@HazwanbinNazarFarisUsually but sanctioning economic giants would undoubtedly hurt your own country more than it'll hurt them
Unless somehow 70% or more of other countries also sanctioned that one major economic power at the same time and actually committed to it, in theory it would hurt the economic giant economy but it is totally unrealistic since not everyone would commit.
The issue with all of these observations is that removing veto power would not, in fact, lead to a reduction in unilateral armed conflict. Russia would be no less likely to invade Ukraine, for example. But the prospects of turning UN condemnation of it into armed UN intervention would have a substantial chance of turning it into an actual world war, i.e. the world versus a nuclear armed power. That's super scary.
Which is to say that while your observations are largely correct, and the concerns stemming from them are as well, there really aren't any good solutions here. The issue is less with the UN and more with the nations that constitute it. Nations always call for the UN to have more power exactly up until the point where that power would be turned against their nation, at which point said power and institution would quickly be ignored instead of respected.
the UN would be more effective if only liberal democracies that have laws enshrining freedom of speech, rule of law and peaceful transfer of power where allowed in.
@@leojohn1615Honestly that would be NATO+ or NATO- depending on how you are defining laws enshrining freedom of speech.
Why you didn't take US invasion on Iraq as the example?
@@tiggerbane4325 Yeah except used for political and economic influence rather than defense.
When you have veto power, the whole idea just goes down the drain. Even without veto I doubt anything will change.
It's rather fitting that I watched this video while I was in the process of building my Lego UN model, lol. Thank you for another interesting video.
God be with you out there, everybody. ✝️ :)
1:35 that is a silly map...
So much for equality.
No doubt it is broken.
So how does your dream society look like?
Terrific explanation in the first half
There is no “international law” only agreements between signatories.
bingo
The UN is useful as an international table where nations can talk.
...and it shouldn't be anything else.
Veto power is unfair, and universal suffrage vote would be foolish.
So, no binding rule should come out of the UN, but rather friendly agreements between nations.
Friendship yeilds no benefit between nations. Assurances and security, thats the trade it seems American President Trump is eilling to completly throw out to harken mankind back to the archaic eras of Posturing and saber-rattling. Lord knows he sizes up Mexico for invasion daily
We don’t need French and Uk influence anymore it’s super obsolete
like it or not they quite possibly still hold number 4 and number 5 spots as great powers no other nations have their mix of nuclear weapons, international spread of bases, logistics for power projection and an economy to back it up.
Yes but you still need British financial backing 😂😂
@@leojohn1615oh yeah what about india it is 5 th largest economy in the economy yet doesn't have a seat but these blood thirsty criminals have a place
@@leojohn1615India ??? India got a bigger growing economy, a younger demographics, lot of nukes, growing space program, a bigger military budget with lot of indigenisation taking place & the largest population in the world.
@@Traderking1990 Yes. However if India wanted to intervene in a conflict on the other side of the world, lets say the Caribbean tomorrow they wouldn't have the basses logistical capacity or high ranking staff experience to make it happen the way the UK can and has in the past even as recently as the Falklands.
amazing video, thanks
it’s extremely informative: its origins and subsequent its obsolete functionality. It’s comprised of high paying bureaucrats from developing countries. It is generally an international forum: discussions prevent regional conflicts that might be the cause of WW3.😅
At the very least you shouldnt be able to use veto when the action is against you
Whether it's against you or against your interests, the result is the same. Not allowing a veto power in those circumstances basically makes the veto useless as that would be the primary time these countries are interested in using the Veto..... except for the US which ~60 of it's 86 vetoes are about Israel.
@@jonathanbelfirethe UN is obsessed with israel as you can see
Oh your geopolitical allies will then vote no for you. Remember, China generally abstains from this sort of shit. If Russia wasn't doing most of the vetoes China would be doing it a lot more often.
If that happens the country withdraws from the UN and doesnt recognize its resolution. What is UN going to do if Russia or US withdraw from it. Can UN impose the resolution on these countries. Not just that, many countries will leave UN. Say after Russia withdraws from UN. A UN resolution is passed against Venezuela, Venezuela will simply withdraw and seek support from Russia. A resolution against Isreal and it withdraws and runs to the US.
The Veto makes UN obsolete, but the Veto is what keeping UN together. Without veto UN would dissolve within a day.
Imagine how many countries have grievances against US and Russia, they bring in resolutions but they get vetoed down. Many countries know their resolutions will be vetoed so they dont bring them in to begin with. If veto is removed, it would be a resolution fest at UN. Resolution piles against protected countries like the permanent member states and Israel reach as high as the UN building itself.
What is the reason why Crimea is red at 20:31 while Ukraine is coloured black?
Crimea is recognized as part of Ukraine by most of the countries. Crimea is occupied by russia. And this fact is also acknowledged by the international community.
So I'm wondering what the reasoning for such a map in this case?
ахахах) дивись, якщо ти подивишся уважніше, то побачиш що то карта не країн, а блоків, чорним виділена фактично не сама Україна, а територія поза блоками(так само як і виділена чорним територія Монголії, Грузії, Азербайджана, Афганістана, і багато інших), у той час як червоним виділена не сама рф, а території підкотррольні їй(в рамках ОДКБ). А оскільки в Криму знаходяться військові бази і купа зброї, що дозволяє проектувати силу в ЧМ регіоні, його віднесли до "підконтрольних РФ".
До речі карта застаріла, бо з 24го року Вірменія вийшла з ОДКБ.
i hate to break this to you sir but i doubt ukraine will get crimea back at this point.
League of Nations: I have seen this before ! this is a classic !
UN HQ would be a great apartment building! It's on prime real estate in lowe Manhattan
Let's see. Russo-Ukraine War. The Israeli-Hamas War. Not to mention all those pesky other little wars from the last thirty years. yeah, great job guys.
Don't forget Armenia vs. Azerbaijan.
Twice
I agree, though it is broken, it is still our backbone.
World citizens… rise up and force our governments to reform.
Interestingly, reform of the security council is not only made difficult by the permanent 5 members, but also by various coalitions within the UN system. For example, countries like South Korea, Pakistan and Argentina have formed a coalition to block Japan, India and Brazil from becoming permanent members. They have no interest in having one of their regional peers get an edge within the UN system.
Very good analysis
After watching this channel for many years, I've come to the conclusion that his analysis is nothing but witty quotes and polished editing.
A dying continent of Europe doesn't deserve 3 seats at the UN PSC.
It can't be helped the colonized the whole world in the past
What a ridiculous thing to say, Europe is not a "dying continent"
5:03: Great interpretation
A veto is a dilemma. On the one hand it slows down decision making. On the other hand it makes it more difficult for corrupt politicians to enforce their will by securing a majority.
You say this
Yet we’ve seen what the US have done with their veto
The fact is India not being part of permanent council even though India has largest population in the world,largest democracy,one the largest economy being 5th in the world in terms of nominal GDP and contributed largely in peacekeeping and funding is a very major flaw in UN too that's why Our govt is considering withdrawing from UN and also slashes funding and security personnel for peacekeeping operations
Just another envious Indian commenter.
Yet another envious commenter from India.
India doesn't deserve to become veto members in unsc
@@widodoakrom3938 why is that ? Give your reason which is not idiotic
@@widodoakrom3938You must be British 😂
This may have been the most uninteresting and flawed analysis by the Caspian Report yet. We know how the UN is supposed to work, we would like insight into how it ACTUALLY works. Case in point - Israel unfairly gets more Security Council resolutions lobbed against it than all others combined. Why? Its a democracy with more humanitarian laws than 90% of the rest of the UN members. Its illogical, and clearly there are other levers behind the scenes that actually impact UN activity. It is these kinds of discrepancies that make the UN obsolete and unrespected.
League of Nations 2.0
Well done. We'll stated.
Because Russia is still in UN council
Eliminate uni-lateral veto. How big you are shouldnt mean a damn thing. It just creates a bully for a$$holes to snuggle up to, completely marginalizing the concepts of unity or negotiation for settling of differences.
You havent figured it out yet. Say they dont have a veto power and security council passes a resolution to use UN army in Ukraine against Russia and in Palestine against Israel, what would happen? Will Russia/US allow it?
Great explanation
The quotes at the end always slap ngl
first. Free Palestinians from colonial settler apartheid war crimes.
Say bro, all my sympathy points for people who just willy nilly writing free palestine is empty. It's not like we still have a war going on in Ukraine or you know, the millions of africans who have been ruled by warlords longer than i have lived. If you are really willing to fight for palestine you should try to do something productive. Commenting on a random youtube video is not going to topple governments...
Controlling someone is not ethical or respectful. It's important to communicate openly and respectfully with others, addressing any concerns or conflicts directly and finding mutually acceptable solutions. If you're having difficulties interacting, consider having a calm and honest conversation to discuss your concerns and work towards resolving any issues together.
Quality content
Funny how when regional violence breaks out, people look to military powers to resolve the issues not the UN. I agree the ultimate issue is that the institution cannot create binding decisions. No nation would be willing to give up sovereignty like that with almost nothing tangible to gain. I think that’s why military alliances are much better equipped to establish governing bodies. Members have already relinquished unilateral rights to coercive power. They already trust each other enough to potentially also give up rights to unilateral legislative and or judicial power. I think the idea of a higher governing body is not workable when parts of the world are actively gunning for one another and they don’t see it as a tool to be used against one another.
I am surprised you didn't quote Thomas Sowell about the UN.
As a doctor who sees exclusively veterans, I don’t think I’ve met a veteran of any nation who has served under a UN operation who has positive things to say of them.
An impotent, lethargic and incompetent organisation which blocks aid, permits massacres and genocide rather than follow a moral compass. I won’t pretend I don’t harbour contempt for other things, but I truly despise the UN
The organization was established to promote sovereignty of all states within it, peace was always ever to be a secondary condition and one all members knew was unavoidable due to resources. The UN is successful, its power is in the fact that it’s a forum for cooperation and without it diplomacy and conformity would be much more difficult.
anyone else mistake this for a super earth broadcast?