The UN was never the world police, neither should we want a world police.
this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2026
18 points (82.1% liked)
Political Discussion and Commentary
1536 readers
8 users here now
A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!
The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.
Content Rules:
- Self posts preferred.
- Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
- No spam or self promotion.
- Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.
Commentary Rules
- Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
- Stay on topic.
- Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
- Provide credible sources whenever possible.
- Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
- Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
- Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).
Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.
Partnered Communities:
• Politics
• Science
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes I do want a world police. Governments should not be allowed to abuse their people with impunity and allowing them to do so is one of the fundamental failures of the human race. Genocide is not ok just because the people in power say it is and allowing it to continue because "our hands are tied" is unacceptable.
And what happens when the world police are taken over by unreliable forces, ie fascists?
The idea behind the UN was not that they be world police but that they have a forum to discuss issues before they escalated, and to create a consensus to respond.
And it worked... fine, before technology outpaced it so the discussion was happening everywhere and all the time.
It was never intended to be perfect, but better.
Do I want enforced justice? Yes, but my by terms. And my terms might not always agree with yours, or anyone else's. That's the gambit.
Honestly, I wouldn't want that either. All I'd be asking for is countries to be held to account for their actions. ALL countries. And a unified approach to dealing with counties if the super majority thinks that's the best option. No country should get too powerful to just say "nah, I don't wanna" and do what they want without recourse. Likewise no country should have a veto where 99% of the other countries say they want something done about it but one country, who has veto power, says they can act with impunity and that's all that happens.
That is not how it should work but is how it currently works. The UN is meant to be a forum to prevent wars - but that fails when there are no consequences for those who start, propagate and support wars and genocide.
Countries should sign into the union knowing that if they are tyrannical and the super majority don't like it, there will be consequences, even if purely economic. It should be written into the laws of all the countries who sign into the union. I don't think a UN Police should be required - all countries should work together to create a multi-jurisdictional force anyway.
And poof no countries ever sign into it. That's the issue.
That's how the EU works (a union of countries).
It's how UK works (union of countries).
It's how the US, India, Australia, Germany work (union of states).
It's how Canada works (union of provinces).
Literally it's how all unions work. Essentially it should be like making the world one country beholden to each other for the good and harmony of all. It's not such a bold idea as, and I'm sure I mentioned previously, it's how ALL unions work.
Yeah no, and your examples got progressively more ridiculous. Just no. Sorry that's one of the dumbest takes I've ever seen. There's not any point in saying anything past that.
The same argument holds up to any government doesn't it? Why have a government that can enforce legislation since it could one day be infiltrated by actors I don't like? Isn't the point of most democratic governments that they handle local issues at one level of government, national issues at another but at all layers have some method of enforcement and including the voices / will of the voters? I'm not saying they're perfect, just that your argument against a UN with more teeth seems to apply to all governments
Careful. A world police, if it is legitimized by the global public, might not look like you imagine it.
These countries together would have the majority vote on policy (>50%):
India (17.3%)
China (17.2%)
Pakistan (2.90%)
Nigeria (2.70%)
Russia (1.80%)
DR Congo (1,40%)
Ethiopia (1,40%)
Egypt (1,30%)
Vietnam (1,20%)
Iran (1,10%)
Turkey (1,00%)
Sudan (0,60%)
Shining beacons of democracy and human rights the lot of them.
There is no actual authoritative power over countries, except for firepower.
Abolishing veto power will just lead to the major powers leaving the UN or ignoring it entirely, killing the institution.
Besides, UN security council resolutions (the only thing where the veto power exists) are only a very, very small part of what the UN does.
They aren't even the main purpose of the security council, which mainly exists to give nuclear armed countries a floor to speak to each other on neutral ground after all other diplomatic channels have broken down (i.e. when they're at war).
There's also financial power. The UN could be a trade group that refuses to do business if you don't follow the rules.
Remember, humans used to exile the horrible people as a way to keep the community safe. It doesn't have to be murder.
The UN already does that, too. It's called sanctioning.
But in reality, even the "good guy" EU countries happily keep on buying Russian oil.
It's just magically transformed into Indian oil first, by being loaded onto a different ship in an Indian harbor.
That sounds like an expensive pain in the ass for Russia to me. Or, a "peaceful deterrent", if you will...
It honestly never was funct.
The UN is meant to be a forum for discussion, not a means for enforcement of any rules or laws. The whole point was for representatives of "all" countries to be able to come together and discuss their issues with each other.
Countries that choose to participate in the UN 2.0 should have to pass constitutional amendments self-obligating themselves to abide by the UN Charter.
The EU already exists.
That's where I got the idea from.
The UN was built by the countries that defeated Fascism, under the theory that if they were in charge permanently, we would never see a Fascist threat again. Little did they know the new Fascism was coming from inside the house....