ok fine i will loosen my stance. leaders of conferences dont have to be in the top of each world ranking (even though that is logical). i will just say that leaders of conferences be limited to those in the top 95% of the category. oh wait, north korea is dead last in this category. its annoying how ineffective/inefficient the UN is, and im just annoyed is all.

its silly that iran is all like, we fully support north korea, yay! and so is china. ye gods, were all humans here and have brains. we all know north korea is a moron at arms reduction. but now were all just acting like kids on a playground because we're happy to slap usa/uk on their asses, and be like hah-hah, bullies, you lose this round.

agree with yall that north korea needs to be included somehow, but agree with jurgen that this is one or two steps too far.

and, yes, i know what diplomacy is. but i would never truce/kissass with some kdicers, because they were complete morons. sure, i wouldnt go out of my way to incite them, but i wouldnt appoint them mods or anything.

lol, I love the kdice analogy monte used and it's also very true

China supports N. Korea mostly so that the country doesn't collapse and immigrants stream into China when they finally can. Instead of building a wall and having a border patrol like the US does with Mexico, they just support an evil dictator that builds a wall and uses his own army to keep his subjects in the country.

Its arrogant for you to think that your country can unilaterally "cut funding to [the UN] and kick them out of NYC". I'm sure the underlying treaties can be renegotiated, but such a reform would necessarily be multilateral.

Also this appointment is tiny and inconsequential compared to the important work of the UN in the fields of health, human rights, and economic development....you can't use the appointment of NK to this minor administrative role to delegitimize the entire institution.

Also why don't you post links to articles in actually reputable periodicals? The article you linked to is extremely biased.... To balance out the far right propaganda, here's a blog from the UN itself:
http://www.undispatch.com/so-north-korea-is-leading-the-conference-on-disarmament-so-what

yeah, i guess if youre going to give north korea any position of power at all... there really is no category which they deserve to have authority in. might as well be something as quaint as a conference chairmanship. real discussion can hopefully still take place at the conference despite the leading country's seeming incompetence in the area.

still, i feel a little bit too much rationalization of leaving the UN the way it is because it's too broke to fix it.

btw, has it ever been audited? seems like i hear more about UN corruption in the headlines than UN aid, but maybe that's just because bad news is more popular than good news?

Did you know that this blog (UN Dispatch) is a product of the United Nations Foundation. The UNF was founded by a $1 billion grant from Ted Turner. The UNF is not part of the UN, but has an extremely close relationship with the UN, as it provides it with large amounts of money to fund programs.

wow, just read your link from the UN blog. wtf. it basically says, hey this conference is useless, so its okay that north korea chairs it. nothing bad will come of it.

ok thats nice and all.

but why the fuck is the world paying the UN to have this conference when the UNs own media people admit that its a useless conference that hasnt accomplished shit for over 13 years?

i guess i really just detest people/organizations who take advantage of handouts and spend their freely budgeted money on ludicrous shit. why would anyone want to support an organization that spends money in this manner?

No one has offered any actual evidence that the UN is either corrupt or ineffective. Seems to work okay from my point of view.

As far as the disarmament conference goes, do you have any better suggestions? How else can global disarmament be achieved if not through protracted multilateral negotiations?

boogy, read your own article. the writer claims it's a useless conference since three other arms-reduction conferences have made extraordinary strides in the past couple years, whereas the UN one is still stuck on a 13-year issue, and everyone involved admits that there won't be any progress made in the UN conference, but it's good for "talking".

Ya but thats just one small part of the UN. You can't judge the institution as a whole by just that one small part.