Student: Describe the tumultuous situation of Hitler during World War II and what did the United Nations do in alleviating it?
Dr. Kees: "Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt met together to discuss another world organization. They wanted to ensure that a power similar to the Nazis would not come back. Stalin was willing to make some concessions because he thought the United Nations was better for the future of the Soviet Union. His goal was to make the world more communist than democratic. For the time being he needed the United States and the UK to help him defeat the Nazis. Stalin got a lot of territorial concessions. Stalin loved the veto power in security council because it can truly make him part of the United Nations since he could always say no. So Stalin was like what can I lose? Stalin was willing to work with the Western nations. Also, he wanted to be a benefactor of the newly independent nations. I think unfortunately the United Nations served as such and that's why the United Nations served ineffectively throughout the Cold War."
Student: Do you find the alliance between Roosevelt and Stalin to be more of a facade than a genuine alliance?
Dr. Kees: "Roosevelt saw more in it than Stalin did. Roosevelt was an optimist. Stalin saw it more as a temporary tactical alliance. Within the Soviet leadership, there was some great grudging reliance on the United States. To Stalin, the United States was a real big bad boy. One thing that Stalin questioned was giving France the veto power. Why give France the veto power in 1944 and 1945. Haven't they been terribly beaten by the Germans? It was not in the spirit of international collaboration that Stalin joined the United Nations."
Student: Do you think Stalin thought the United Nations would be no more successful than its predecessor?
Dr. Kees: "He probably did not think of it as more successful than the League of Nations. Having no experience with an international world organization before, he probably thought this wouldn't hold. It just wouldn't last. Stalin also was well versed in Russian history. He looked in the past and saw how Russia did with other alliances. He thinks it never works in history. It's probably good that we have the United Nations. We would be worse without it."
Student: Has the United Nations been effective in preventing World War III?
Dr. Kees: "No, because it was prevented by the bilateral agreements between Kennedy and Khrushchev."
Student: What role did the United Nations play in limiting the use of nuclear weapons and how did the it react when the USA used the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Dr. Kees: "Well, the UN was more of an administrator. They got so many nations to sign nuclear bomb treaty in 1946. However, the United Nations had no influence on Hiroshima and Nagasaki whatsoever. Stalin didn't know how to react when a nuclear bomb was used on civilians. US probably said that they would never do that again. UN probably had little to do with that. The United Nations was much more of an administrator of it."
Student: Do you believe the United Nations was much more successful than the League of Nations and what do you think can make the United Nations better?
Dr. Kees:" It is better because it did do some good. It is always worthwhile to have a forum to help set up discussion. But I think summits are better than the UN meetings. Certainly after the Soviet Union collapsed, there was a few moments of a general collaboration of the United Nations. It was a moment where perhaps it was high time of the United Nations. Organizations such as UNICEF and UNESCO have helped accomplish things. If you don't have it, you would have much more problems on your hand. Fewer people are going hungry than ever before in history. But not having it would make things much worse. I'm a supporter of the United Nations. I do think there are some good things of UN. It has made contributions such as children, diseases, and education."
Student: How influential was the Cold War in altering the role of UN peacekeeping troops from generally observational tasks to multi enterprise tasks?
Dr. Kees: "They are peacekeepers not peacemakers. Never used as an aggressive type army but it was just one of the police force. Stalin wanted no international force. These keepers went to Lebanon and there were so many different factions that nobody knew what was going on. NATO proved fact that it is very difficult to have a multinational military force. Afghanistan with a sign of unity for maybe one moment in 2001 and 2002. Half of NATO backed out of Iraq war in 2003. UN failed in this."
Student: Do you think that bilateral agreements between countries have been more successful on solving disputes than the UN?
Dr. Kees: "Yes. At the end of cold war, Gorbachev talked with Bush and ended it and unified Germany. Usually, bilateral and sometimes multilateral agreements were more successful in solving disputes. Ukraine was not solved by UN mainly because of the Russia veto."
Student: Which of you would you more agree with a cynical view that a UN is just a figurehead or the optimistic view that the UN has made change?
Dr. Kees: "Outside of politics and the resolutions of international conflict, I think there have been good parts of the United Nations. Again UNICEF and UNESCO. It has potential but has not delivered on it. We have to hope in the 21st century that it happens. In 70 years, there has not been much evidence of improving lives."
Student: What changes should be made to the United Nations?
Dr. Kees: "It is not all UN fault because there is a dependence on nationalism in the world. Only when states begin to accept that there is a higher force than national gov't, then will it be good. Other states must believe in it. Security Council is outdated because of 5 countries as the P5. There should be other countries in security council. It is an arrogant outdated kind of council. Perhaps it has been effective at times. It is an old echo of European dominance of world with China thrown in. It doesn't make much sense to have 5 veto powers. The General Assembly is skewed because Grenada has same vote as USA. UN has been effective in natural disasters and environment. We have to wait though. Not a great record in 70 years."
Student: How do you propose every single nation has equal representation in the Security Council?
Dr. Kees: "It is impractical because Grenada has the same vote as Brazil. Probably regional blocs, maybe proportional according to population. Each representative then has to make sure that all members in bloc has to agree. Why isn't India in the Security Council. Why are there barely any Arabic countries in it? Nationalism should weaken. Now it's the new religion of everyone."
Student: Do you think the United Nations was effective in the decolonization of colonies?
Dr. Kees:" Many died when India and Pakistan got independence. Israel and Palestine were big misses. UN had influence on it. I don't know how much influence was present in Africa in keeping peace during decolonization. Strangely drawn borders. The mess in British India was tremendous. Yugoslavia fell apart. UN didn't work in peaceful matters with it. Mainly bilateral agreements."
Student: When the USSR dissolved into Russia in the 1990s, how did its role in the P five change?
Dr. Kees: "Russia became aggressive again under Putin. They should make Russia member of EU and NATO. That was the mistake. Strengthening of Chinese and Russian bloc in 21st century. Russia has raw materials and China has labor. Russia is pretty aggressive now. More collaborative since 2000 in UN."
Student: How would the world be different if the UN didn't exist?
Dr. Kees: "Not much difference. Many unilateral and bilateral agreements. It would be unclear about whom to deliver foreign aid. The UN has been effective in international crisis such as famine. In a grander scale, UN has not cost much money. It has done some good. Disappointing in a grandiose aspects."
Student: How has the UN been a leader and what is its legacies?
Dr. Kees: "Its ideals make it a leader. The freedoms by Eleanor Roosevelt, the deal of human equality, and freedom. Now it's good that there is an organization behind it. People say we must have these norms and morals. It has done few good things. At least it has those ideals, now let's try to get closer to ideals."
Student: How has the UN assisted in international affairs like food and health?
Dr. Kees: "It has helped in famine and diseases. Things funded by others might have been more effective than UN. How do the items exactly get to the people? Private organizations might be better for it. Much potential but not delivered."
Student: What impact did the end of USSR have on UN?
Dr. Kees: "Missed opportunity. The Russians gained less power. Countries just said you are yesterday's power so we don't take you seriously. UN did help with nuclear disarmament treaties by making sure Russia ended up with nukes rather than other USSR nations. Aggressive Russia with Putin on it. Chinese still got Communist say."
Dr. Kees: "Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt met together to discuss another world organization. They wanted to ensure that a power similar to the Nazis would not come back. Stalin was willing to make some concessions because he thought the United Nations was better for the future of the Soviet Union. His goal was to make the world more communist than democratic. For the time being he needed the United States and the UK to help him defeat the Nazis. Stalin got a lot of territorial concessions. Stalin loved the veto power in security council because it can truly make him part of the United Nations since he could always say no. So Stalin was like what can I lose? Stalin was willing to work with the Western nations. Also, he wanted to be a benefactor of the newly independent nations. I think unfortunately the United Nations served as such and that's why the United Nations served ineffectively throughout the Cold War."
Student: Do you find the alliance between Roosevelt and Stalin to be more of a facade than a genuine alliance?
Dr. Kees: "Roosevelt saw more in it than Stalin did. Roosevelt was an optimist. Stalin saw it more as a temporary tactical alliance. Within the Soviet leadership, there was some great grudging reliance on the United States. To Stalin, the United States was a real big bad boy. One thing that Stalin questioned was giving France the veto power. Why give France the veto power in 1944 and 1945. Haven't they been terribly beaten by the Germans? It was not in the spirit of international collaboration that Stalin joined the United Nations."
Student: Do you think Stalin thought the United Nations would be no more successful than its predecessor?
Dr. Kees: "He probably did not think of it as more successful than the League of Nations. Having no experience with an international world organization before, he probably thought this wouldn't hold. It just wouldn't last. Stalin also was well versed in Russian history. He looked in the past and saw how Russia did with other alliances. He thinks it never works in history. It's probably good that we have the United Nations. We would be worse without it."
Student: Has the United Nations been effective in preventing World War III?
Dr. Kees: "No, because it was prevented by the bilateral agreements between Kennedy and Khrushchev."
Student: What role did the United Nations play in limiting the use of nuclear weapons and how did the it react when the USA used the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Dr. Kees: "Well, the UN was more of an administrator. They got so many nations to sign nuclear bomb treaty in 1946. However, the United Nations had no influence on Hiroshima and Nagasaki whatsoever. Stalin didn't know how to react when a nuclear bomb was used on civilians. US probably said that they would never do that again. UN probably had little to do with that. The United Nations was much more of an administrator of it."
Student: Do you believe the United Nations was much more successful than the League of Nations and what do you think can make the United Nations better?
Dr. Kees:" It is better because it did do some good. It is always worthwhile to have a forum to help set up discussion. But I think summits are better than the UN meetings. Certainly after the Soviet Union collapsed, there was a few moments of a general collaboration of the United Nations. It was a moment where perhaps it was high time of the United Nations. Organizations such as UNICEF and UNESCO have helped accomplish things. If you don't have it, you would have much more problems on your hand. Fewer people are going hungry than ever before in history. But not having it would make things much worse. I'm a supporter of the United Nations. I do think there are some good things of UN. It has made contributions such as children, diseases, and education."
Student: How influential was the Cold War in altering the role of UN peacekeeping troops from generally observational tasks to multi enterprise tasks?
Dr. Kees: "They are peacekeepers not peacemakers. Never used as an aggressive type army but it was just one of the police force. Stalin wanted no international force. These keepers went to Lebanon and there were so many different factions that nobody knew what was going on. NATO proved fact that it is very difficult to have a multinational military force. Afghanistan with a sign of unity for maybe one moment in 2001 and 2002. Half of NATO backed out of Iraq war in 2003. UN failed in this."
Student: Do you think that bilateral agreements between countries have been more successful on solving disputes than the UN?
Dr. Kees: "Yes. At the end of cold war, Gorbachev talked with Bush and ended it and unified Germany. Usually, bilateral and sometimes multilateral agreements were more successful in solving disputes. Ukraine was not solved by UN mainly because of the Russia veto."
Student: Which of you would you more agree with a cynical view that a UN is just a figurehead or the optimistic view that the UN has made change?
Dr. Kees: "Outside of politics and the resolutions of international conflict, I think there have been good parts of the United Nations. Again UNICEF and UNESCO. It has potential but has not delivered on it. We have to hope in the 21st century that it happens. In 70 years, there has not been much evidence of improving lives."
Student: What changes should be made to the United Nations?
Dr. Kees: "It is not all UN fault because there is a dependence on nationalism in the world. Only when states begin to accept that there is a higher force than national gov't, then will it be good. Other states must believe in it. Security Council is outdated because of 5 countries as the P5. There should be other countries in security council. It is an arrogant outdated kind of council. Perhaps it has been effective at times. It is an old echo of European dominance of world with China thrown in. It doesn't make much sense to have 5 veto powers. The General Assembly is skewed because Grenada has same vote as USA. UN has been effective in natural disasters and environment. We have to wait though. Not a great record in 70 years."
Student: How do you propose every single nation has equal representation in the Security Council?
Dr. Kees: "It is impractical because Grenada has the same vote as Brazil. Probably regional blocs, maybe proportional according to population. Each representative then has to make sure that all members in bloc has to agree. Why isn't India in the Security Council. Why are there barely any Arabic countries in it? Nationalism should weaken. Now it's the new religion of everyone."
Student: Do you think the United Nations was effective in the decolonization of colonies?
Dr. Kees:" Many died when India and Pakistan got independence. Israel and Palestine were big misses. UN had influence on it. I don't know how much influence was present in Africa in keeping peace during decolonization. Strangely drawn borders. The mess in British India was tremendous. Yugoslavia fell apart. UN didn't work in peaceful matters with it. Mainly bilateral agreements."
Student: When the USSR dissolved into Russia in the 1990s, how did its role in the P five change?
Dr. Kees: "Russia became aggressive again under Putin. They should make Russia member of EU and NATO. That was the mistake. Strengthening of Chinese and Russian bloc in 21st century. Russia has raw materials and China has labor. Russia is pretty aggressive now. More collaborative since 2000 in UN."
Student: How would the world be different if the UN didn't exist?
Dr. Kees: "Not much difference. Many unilateral and bilateral agreements. It would be unclear about whom to deliver foreign aid. The UN has been effective in international crisis such as famine. In a grander scale, UN has not cost much money. It has done some good. Disappointing in a grandiose aspects."
Student: How has the UN been a leader and what is its legacies?
Dr. Kees: "Its ideals make it a leader. The freedoms by Eleanor Roosevelt, the deal of human equality, and freedom. Now it's good that there is an organization behind it. People say we must have these norms and morals. It has done few good things. At least it has those ideals, now let's try to get closer to ideals."
Student: How has the UN assisted in international affairs like food and health?
Dr. Kees: "It has helped in famine and diseases. Things funded by others might have been more effective than UN. How do the items exactly get to the people? Private organizations might be better for it. Much potential but not delivered."
Student: What impact did the end of USSR have on UN?
Dr. Kees: "Missed opportunity. The Russians gained less power. Countries just said you are yesterday's power so we don't take you seriously. UN did help with nuclear disarmament treaties by making sure Russia ended up with nukes rather than other USSR nations. Aggressive Russia with Putin on it. Chinese still got Communist say."