The United Nations was founded in 1944 after World War II by the allied forces at a time when they were very much flush with their victory. The allied forces included USA, Great Britain, Russia, China, and France
The UN, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), is an undemocratic and unjust organization.
The UN belongs to the USA and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Despite its pretense of being an independent UN agency, its policies are generally dictated by the US.
How can the UN deny the rest of the world the opportunity to acquire nuclear knowledge just because Washington, Paris and London feel that this should not be in the hands of the colored races of the world?
We disagree with the French leader's belief that nuclear Iran could threaten the world when the US is using its veto to launch an attack on other nations without any justification. The UN Security Council has no right to stop or monitor other nations' nuclear progress if they claim to be advocates for democracy. Every nation has the ultimate right to seek scientific knowledge acquired through education.
The goal of the United Democratic Nations is to promote world peace through the process of democracy. It is the belief of this organization that increased representation equates to a decrease in war, conflict and the abuse of human rights.
Strictly speaking, the current structure of the United Nations is NOT democratic, in the political science sense of the word. While it can be said to be representative (all nations have representatives in the U.N.), the selection of those representatives is in no way democratic, and the U.N. as a whole has no real political responsibility to the people of the earth. Organizationally, the U.N. is an oligarchy, with membership limited to countries as entities, not representatives of some constituency. This is not to say that the U.N. doesn't have democratic impulses and goals, and frequently promotes (and even achieves) democratic purposes, but only that the current organization is decidedly non-democratic.
Only as and when it suits those nations that control the power and money.
Committee for a Democratic UN was created in 2003.
The UN stands for united nations, not just one nation.
Imperialism
yes
yes
The United Nations is treaty organization, not one based on the will of the people, but the organization votes in a relatively democratic way.
Communist nation. If the US/allies had won the war, the RVN (Republic of South Vietnam) would exist today as a "democratic nation." Just like SOUTH KOREA (ROK=Republic of South Korea) exists today as a "democratic nation." The US/UN won that war (Korean War 1950-1953). RVN=No longer exists (US/Allied defeat) ROK=Exists (US/UN Victory)
It is a non democratic type of leadership. The ruling system is the one political party ruling.
It is a democratic country.It is a democratic country.It is a democratic country.It is a democratic country.It is a democratic country.It is a democratic country.It is a democratic country.It is a democratic country.It is a democratic country.It is a democratic country.It is a democratic country.
The UN is not democratic, since nothing depends upon the population of the nations involved. In the General Assembly every nation gets one vote, regardless of population, and permanent membership in the more powerful Security Council is determined mainly by military power (with the non-permanent members having a lesser status and being invited in as a kind of courtesy). As an additional problem, many of the members of the UN are non democratic nations, so whatever influence they have in the UN is used by some kind of dictatorial government rather than by the population of that country; China is a prime example, having a permanent seat on the Security Council and being ruled by the self-perpetuating oligarchy known as the Communist Party. But then, the UN never had a mandate to bring democracy to the world. Their main purpose is to prevent war. In this, the UN has not been very successful either. Nonetheless, the UN continues to be a useful forum for global diplomacy, despite its many shortcomings.
No. He was a democratic leader in Germany.No. He was a democratic leader in Germany.No. He was a democratic leader in Germany.No. He was a democratic leader in Germany.No. He was a democratic leader in Germany.No. He was a democratic leader in Germany.No. He was a democratic leader in Germany.No. He was a democratic leader in Germany.No. He was a democratic leader in Germany.No. He was a democratic leader in Germany.No. He was a democratic leader in Germany.
democratic