this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
82 points (96.6% liked)

World News

47860 readers
2776 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The United Nations, a collaborative global dream built into reality out of the ashes of World War II, marks its 80th anniversary this month. There’s little to celebrate.

Its clout on the world stage is diminished. Facing major funding cuts from the United States and others, it has been forced to shed jobs and start tackling long-delayed reforms. Its longtime credo of “multilateralism” is under siege. Its most powerful body, the Security Council, has been blocked from taking action to end the two major wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

And as the latest conflict between Israel, Iran and the United States flared, it watched from the sidelines.

Four generations after its founding, as it tries to chart a new path for its future, a question hangs over the institution and the nearly 150,000 people it employs and oversees: Can the United Nations remain relevant in an increasingly contentious and fragmented world?

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 37 points 2 days ago

The UN has largely worked as intended, even now. It's purpose is to allow the world powers to peacefully interact with each other and control everyone else.

[–] peteyestee@feddit.org 22 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I heard America is trying get the American Idol judge system to replace it but they are waiting to get the final confirmation from Coca Cola.

[–] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I’m so fucking offended by this comment. You think that America is just a bunch of goddam capitalism that works its way into every nook and cranny of politics that the US is in? We’re just an entertainment pumping machine for your entertainment? No. We are a capitalist entertainment empire and you better fucking LOVE it because it would all be sponsored by McDonald’s and not Coca Cola.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It'll probably reform under a different name in 5-10 year's time.

[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I've always been partial to restarting the League of Nations, which notably never had the United States anyway... sounds familiar.

[–] Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the League of Nations largely the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson, US president during WW1?

It was structurally different to the UN we know today, but it was still pushed forward by a US president.

[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

wasn’t the League of Nations largely the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson, US president during WW1?

Yes it was, quite ironic that the US never became a part of it right? But they've always been like that. I can't figure out why anyone would rely on an agreement with them when every 4 years they switch from Jekyll to Hyde, do an about face and throw you to the wolves. They're useful allies when they want to be useful, but I wouldn't rely on them or trust any agreement with them any further than I can throw it. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 1 points 16 hours ago

I wouldn't rely on them or trust any agreement with them any further than I can throw it.

Idk....I can throw a balled up piece of paper pretty far...and frankly I would trust any agreement significantly less than I can throw that....

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It needs to re-form as something different. No state should have veto power, no state that bullies others, internally or externally should be on the security or human rights councils, no state that isn't signatory to charters should get any vote. States that refused to arrest on warrants should have membership revoked. Probably more but those would be good starting points.

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There could be value in such an association, but it wouldn't replace the UN, far from it.

What's your proposing is akin to the ICC, where willing states join and agree to comply with its rulings.

The UN serves as a forum for all countries of the world. If no privileges were given to the world's most powerful countries, they might just leave it, severaly reducing its use in the process.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The UN serves as a forum for all countries of the world. If no privileges were given to the world's most powerful countries, they might just leave it, severaly reducing its use in the process.

And? You can see powerful countries abusing veto powers and that in no way should be on the human rights councils. If these countries refuse to uphold global standards, they're not in, and can be prosecuted.

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

I don't think a membre of the security council csn really "abuse" veto power. What do you think would happen if they couldn't?

Again, I'd like to say that there can be value in such an association. Just as I see value in associations like ICC and NATO. They're just not a forum to solve disputes and that's OK.