One world
Is the United Nations a thing of the past or an institution of a growing importance? Some argue that its importance is rising because the world is becoming more globalized, while others say that unilateral actions by major powers have diminished its authority. Some people see the UN as a place where conflicts can be resolved peacefully while others see it as institution isolated from democratic feedback.
Our data show that there exist generational differences in these perceptions as well. Thus, when presented with two statements about the function of the United Nations, “the United Nations has been reduced in its influence and is less relevant today in global matters,” and “the United Nations is needed now more than ever to represent a global perspective on issues that arise,” First Globals™ are the most likely of any generation to agree with the second statement and the least likely of any generation to agree with the first statement. Among First Globals™, 57.4% agree that “the United Nations is needed now more than ever,” compared to 33% of the combined remaining generations. And 34.1% of First Globals™ agree that the “United Nations has been reduced in influence and is less relevant,” compared to about 55% of remaining generations.
Do you think as First Globals™ grow older and move into the workforce their belief that the UN is needed will remain? Do you think we will see the United Nations play a more active role in managing global conflicts and dealing with global issues in the future? Do you agree with the First Globals™ and others who say that the United Nations is needed now more than ever?
Loading ...
I always look at your numbers first because ZOGBY does NOT have an agenda and Zogby doesn’t write the questions to get the numbers they want.
First Globals will probably think the UN is less important as time progresses. I at first thought the UN could help solve a lot of the world’s problems. I have since come to realize that it is a pointless excercise in futility.
As the catastrophic financial collapse spreads and deepens the United Nations will play an important roll in addressing the needs of third world nations by providing aid and limiting war to the extent that it can.
It therefore remains relevant well into the future.
The U.N. could be extremely relevant if it were administered, and its committees were regularly chaired, by reputable diplomats as opposed to the third world thugs that know only one way to get things done — through graft/bribery/corruption. Also, since the U.N. agenda is increasigly anti-U.S. the Obama administration needs to exert more influence over its course.
i fear that the UN is becoming more relevant, though i wish it could just go away. the UN is like our own government, just many times more corrupt, oppressive and wasteful.
The theory of the U.N. is a beautiful vision that I believe we humans should continue to attempt to perfect. The reality of the U.N. is that it is a corrupt and impotent abomination because of … well, humans. We have to get “there” from “here.” Unfortunately, I don’t believe the current reality remotely resembles the dream. Globals, first and otherwise, are both the problem and the solution.
so, you are basically saying that human nature needs to change. what makes you think something like that is possible? wouldn’t it better to abandon “beautiful visions” before they create even bigger problems?
@Cata
Perhaps, Cata. Perhaps. I’m not opposed to “leveling” the thing and starting over. I just don’t think that will happen. I tell my kids all the time that I’m a reality nerd. I guess I’m just also a faith-in-humanity nerd.
It’s never too late to do the right thing, no? What is the “right thing?” I think that’s what we all have to work really hard to figure out together.
@SmartCookie
i am not suggesting that we “start over” – i am suggesting that we abandon the whole project. it is not a matter of whether it is too late to do the right thing – it is not too late, yet, “the right thing” won’t be done. the UN is all about “doing the right thing”, yet, in reality, despite enormous costs, it is doing more harm than good.
@Cata
How interesting that we agree, yet we disagree, Cata. How human of us.
We agree that the U.N. is wasteful, corrupt and does not serve the good purpose for which it was (supposedly) intended. We disagree that the whole project is unworthy from the jump. I don’t want to throw out the good deeds that the U.N. does in fact do with the bathwater of it’s corruption and impotence. Perhaps you’re right that the only sensible solution is to abandon all the good in response to the bad. I just don’t see it quite the same way.
I’m glad we have this forum to share our opinions.
@Cata
And btw, Cata, I hope that you don’t just interpret an argumentative tone from me. I think it’s a good thing that we agree and disagree.
You probably remember that the Constitutional Convention was completely paralyzed in disagreement. Our little country almost never even got off the ground because of the members’ inability to resolve their differences. Fortunately, Ben Franklin (too old and ill to speak directly to the assembly) wrote a letter which reminded everyone the importance of getting it right, for the sake of accomplishing something meaningful. Otherwise, all the bloodshed of the Revolution would have been for nothing. His suggestion was that the members stick to what they could (all!) agree on, and leave the rest of it out of the Constitution. Unanimity was the (worthy!) goal. He was also the same one who inserted “Self-evident truths” in another of our founding documents, as you recall.
I think that’s a good lesson for we humans to remember, even today. And We The People. There is no possible way we’re all going to agree with each other about everything. But we should put a high value on what we all can agree on. Our area of agreement seems to be a common one, globally speaking. That looks like a good starting point from which solutions to be reached together. Perhaps those responsible for the actual direction of the U.N. will recognize the same opportunity.
That’s my hope, anyway.
Don’t think it matters what anyone who responds to polls wants. Only a world wide nuke war would stop the flow of assets from the working class to our owners.
Being of the same age as the U.N., I’ve had an entire lifetime to observe what it does, and I still cannot discern what that really is. By all appearances, it’s an afternoon club for government employees ostracised from their host countries who enjoy being part of a boring crowd, and listening ad-nauseum to propaganda speeches, while wearing silly-looking earpieces that were high-tech in the mid-1950’s.
They often produce “Resolutions” which are subsequently ignored by those to whom they were directed.
Occaisionally, they pretend to “keep-the-peace” somewhere by sending some troops into an area of conflict. Their “show-of-force” leaves something to be desired as they march-in wearing their powder-puff blue uniforms, in numbers that can easily overpower the local Boy Scout Troop.
They do a respectable job of providing food & medicine to destitute populations around the world; they could improve their efficiency by recruiting those with the earpieces, if they could get them to put-down the mint-juleps and heft a 50lb bag of wheat or rice.
Beyond that, the U.N. is definitely a money pit on a scale rivalling that of the U.S. government – perhaps even exceeding it. It’s really hard to tell since the U.S. government pays for (about half?) of it.
While needed when it was created, it has grown into a failed vestige of another time. We should cut it loose, financially and diplomatically.
@billwald
Marxist