The U.N. is not a government. It is an organization of governments created to prevent war. As long as Burma and Zimbabwe don't make war on their neighbors, nothing that goes on inside is any of the U.N.'s business.

As for what goes on in 3rd world countries, if a first-world country thinks it can do things better it can take the 3rd-world country on as a colony. Otherwise, it's none of the first-world country's business.

(Once upon a time, regime-change was a third possibility. But that option has been emphatically rejected by all but the die-hard Bush supporters.)

Look up the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, which has been acknowledge by the UN. It allows countries to intervene in other countries if they don't fulfill their responsibility to protect their citizens. Granted right now its just words on paper, since no one has put it into practice, but if someone does make it practical then the UN would have the right to meddle in other countries business, even if they are only oppressing their own citizens.

Msummo

What would you suggest the UN do? If you had the power to do something, what would you do?

Well the fact is the UN can't do anything because of the way the UNSC works. The UN is useless. The US/EU are the only two powers that have the resources to do anything. However as Rwanda, the Congo, and Darfur has shown us, 1,000,000 men, women, and children could be systematically murdered in the street and the American/European populations will not approve of a humanitarian intervention until its too late.

Not that I think its possible or likely for the people of Burma or Zimbabwe to be saved by outside intervention, I'm merely stating that such an intervention would in fact be legal. Yet it can never happen under a system where popular opinion dictates what foreign actions governments can take.

Remember that had Japan not attacked the US in 1941 it is likely the American people would not have approved of war in time to stop Hitler from overtaking all of Europe.

msummo:

...Well the fact is the UN can't do anything because of the way the UNSC works. The UN is useless. The US/EU are the only two powers that have the resources to do anything. However as Rwanda, the Congo, and Darfur has shown us, 1,000,000 men, women, and children could be systematically murdered in the street and the American/European populations will not approve of a humanitarian intervention until its too late.

Not that I think its possible or likely for the people of Burma or Zimbabwe to be saved by outside intervention, I'm merely stating that such an intervention would in fact be legal. Yet it can never happen under a system where popular opinion dictates what foreign actions governments can take.

Remember that had Japan not attacked the US in 1941 it is likely the American people would not have approved of war in time to stop Hitler from overtaking all of Europe.

Not to mention all the grief the President has gotten for daring to try intervention in Iraq.