The United Nation : Time for a Re-Think

[B~E]

Some things are doomed to remain imperfect, and the United Nations is among them. Despite noble aspirations, the organisation that embodies the collective will and wisdom of an imperfect world was created, and in the words of a former secretary-general, not to bring the world to Heaven, but to save it from hell.

But so far, as it failed to do so ? Koffi Annan asked a group of emminent folk to put on their thinking cap, and answer this question : how the UN might in the futur better contribute to international peace and security and mobilising its own and the world's ressources to prevent, and when needed, resolve crisies in a more resolute manner. The repport answering this question is due for delivering on the first of december, but I thought, in the meanwhile, why not come up with our own critisism of the UN, with our own suggestions to improve it and how to do it.

But first, let me post here sone of the fact that has leaked of the report of the commission.

Dominated by rich white nations, the U.N's main councils have lost a lot of credibility. For exemple, why would britain, with its 60m people, have a permanent seat while India, with 1 billion, do not ? Or why Russia, with its GIP the size of Belgium's, have a permanent seat, while Japan, the world's second largest economy, doesn't ? The argument has been around for ages, but the comission may have hit gold this time.

They have proposed an expanded 24 member council comprised of 3 tier : the existing immovable 5 member council with veto right, a new second tier of 7 or 8 members elected on a regional basis for a renewable four years term, and an expanded bottom tier of rotating members elected on a regional basis. This would solve, to a very limited extend, the representation problem, and give more credibility ot the U.N, especialy in the third-world.

Of course, all of this is opposed by Germany, Japan, Brasil and India, because it would take away their chances at getting a seat in the Permanent Council.

In my opinion, this plan is good, and could even work. But it isn't going far enough. At the way things are going, in, 10, 20 years this new representation order will have become completly irrelevant, because India, Brazil, and possibly even Iran will have become major players in international politic, and powerhouse in their own respective regions, thus making the representation system, new or old, obsolet.

Also, I believe that we should get rid of the veto system, because, not only it isn't representative of any country's real power, but it is the reason why so many UN resolution didn't pass. The main secutrity council is composed of countries representing many culture and, more often than not, opposed agenda and opinions. Thus, by giving them the hability of stopping a resolution that would arm their interests, and to block each other, it is only normal that the U.N is doomed to be inert when it needs to act.

I could post more, but its late, and I think there is enough thoughts here to at least start a discussion. And in the words of Koffy Annan, as he said last september ; "Lets not imagine that, if we fail to make good use of the U.N, we will find anymore effective instruments".

[Lights]

I've always thought the UN is a good idea, and sounds good on paper, but in reality is a waste of time. The countries who are going to be 'good' are going to be 'good' with or without the UN. Yet, as has been proven (with the League of Nations, too) those who are going to be 'bad' are going to be 'bad' with or without the UN. It holds no real power. The UN is nothing more than a bunch of old men pissing on one another.

The resolutions and proposals are all swell, but.. who cares?

[TrongaMonga]

The UN won't work for two single reasons:

First, it is made by different cultures, and what one thinks to be correct, others will not. But, well, that's what democracy, in a way, is there for.

Second, as you said, rich countries (specially the founders), will not obey it, most times, anyway.

[Biske]

Well, it will work if, say, all the countries see something as a genuine threat and move to get rid of it. But other then that, it's worthless.

[B~E]

Originally Posted by Lights

I've always thought the UN is a good idea, and sounds good on paper, but in reality is a waste of time. The countries who are going to be 'good' are going to be 'good' with or without the UN. Yet, as has been proven (with the League of Nations, too) those who are going to be 'bad' are going to be 'bad' with or without the UN. It holds no real power. The UN is nothing more than a bunch of old men pissing on one another.

That sure explain why recently Iran agreed to halt its nuclear research in order for Germany, Britain and France to agree on not bringing the issue in the security council. Because, here, you denying allthe diplomatic weight and power of the U.N, and its effect on the behaviors of countries.
I'll agree that more resolution should be supported and enforced, but sometime they are, and in those cases, the U.N has the power to raise a trade embargo, to call for military actions or economical sanctions.

First, it is made by different cultures, and what one thinks to be correct, others will not. But, well, that's what democracy, in a way, is there for.

The only problem with this is when a country with diverging interest use its veto power to block any actions by the rest of the group. But this can delt with by taking away the veto power, and replacing it with actual votes.

Well, it will work if, say, all the countries see something as a genuine threat and move to get rid of it. But other then that, it's worthless.

How can you chose to forget about the myriad of utilities of the U.N ? the UNAIDS, the UNDP, the UNHCR, the UNFPA, and so forth ? Or the fact that the U"N is one of the last institution where nations can still debate betwen each other. Dialogue is extremly important in times of tensions. For exemple, when the USA was trying to convince the U.N of the danger of Irak, dont you see the point of it, or do you think the Bush administration wasted months for nothing ?

The UN is needed to keep superpowers from taking over the world, and bad regimes from dominating less militaristic neighbours. If you think the UN isn't working well, you as the US, has the power to push for reform. UN doesnt do things on its own, because its power is located in the five nations in the security council. If those member nations do nothing, UN does nothing. Everyone pushed for the UN to help Afghanistan, otherwise, UN wouldnt be there. You're the one that has to push for things.

The UN is necessary. It just needs to be revamped, along with the council seats, which in itself is going to cause conflict.

[Lights]

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

That sure explain why recently Iran agreed to halt its nuclear research in order for Germany, Britain and France to agree on not bringing the issue in the security council. Because, here, you denying allthe diplomatic weight and power of the U.N, and its effect on the behaviors of countries.
I'll agree that more resolution should be supported and enforced, but sometime they are, and in those cases, the U.N has the power to raise a trade embargo, to call for military actions or economical sanctions.

Now, I know it does have some power. But the ulimate purpose, for the peace of civilized nations, isn't really achievable. For instance, when Hitler wanted to start WWII, he just simply withdrew from the League. Or Bush's preemptive attack on Iraq without prior UN approval. If someone gets it into their head that they are going to do something, they are going to do it. The UN cannot stop that, not as it is now.

Like you said, though, there are many things it can do, but stopping wars isn't high on that list.

[B~E]

As opposed to the League of Nation 50 years ago, an international organisation like the U.N has a tremendous base of cultural, economical and military power, to effectivly exerce pressure on a dissidant country. The UN has all the power and moral justification to stop pretty much anyone from doing what they're soing, as long as it is in the U.N's domain of control, which, as you may know, is pretty wide and general. The UN could have stoped the USA from going to war, it had to means to do that. But, as you said, the U.N, in its present shape, isn't in a position to efficiently use that power to shape current events.
But why is that ? Because of you. Its your fault. Its everyone's fault. The UN represent the collective will of the world, it isn't an autonomous entity. So if it isn't effetive in what it should do, your country has the power to change things, especially if your an american. The U.N could do anything, if it was revemped.

And its in your interest to have a powerfull, fully funtional UN, with a set of enforced international laws, that could force the whole world to play the same game, and by the rules. How else are we going to prevent, slow down and control the process of weapons proliferation, or how else could we justify preemptive offense, or orther sanctions if nobody anymore believe in the credibility of the UN.

All in all, the UN may be the last, and biggest lever of power Western civilisation may use agaisnt the rest of the world to shape things according to our interests.

And I'm suprised this thread isnt getting more replies. Leave that retarded thread about the speed of light people ! Its out of your league anyway ! come here insteed !

[Tipsy]

Just because you asked so nicely:

And I'm suprised this thread isnt getting more replies. Leave that retarded thread about the speed of light people ! Its out of your league anyway ! come here insteed !

i'll respond.

In my opinion, the United Nations in its' present form really has no power. The power of the United Nations comes from the countries in it so all the people who go against what it agrees, the United States with the war in Iraq for me example, only has to worry about the collective group of countries in the United Nations. I think in order for the United Nations to actually become a working body to uphold international law even when a superpower, the United States in my example again, does something against its' wishes, need to actually hold some sort of power. I don't have any specific suggestion, but it needs to have something of its' own, not power that comes through the countries in it.

The key statement in your first post I think is:

how the UN might in the future better contribute to international peace and security and mobilising its own [and the world's] ressources to prevent, and when needed, resolve crisies in a more resolute manner

The United Nations needs to by some means acquire its' own resources to actually become a power.

As for the veto power, continuing on my opinion I stated above, I think it should be taken away from individual countries and have some sort of small unbiased group of members that work purely for the United Nations, no other country, and that group use the veto power to uphold international law.

I've always thought the UN is a good idea, and sounds good on paper, but in reality is a waste of time. The countries who are going to be 'good' are going to be 'good' with or without the UN. Yet, as has been proven (with the League of Nations, too) those who are going to be 'bad' are going to be 'bad' with or without the UN. It holds no real power. The UN is nothing more than a bunch of old men pissing on one another.

The resolutions and proposals are all swell, but.. who cares?

I agree with Lights with a lot of this, the United Nations can have all of the swell resolutions and proposals but it has no real power by itself to enforce these, it relies completely on members who may or may not want to.

The conclusion to all of this, I agree, the United Nations desperately needs to get revamped. It can do many things as it is, but as for the holding countries to international war, it really can't because if the most powerful members in the United Nations do not want to enforce the United Nation law, it is not going to get enforced.

[Onmyoji the Hidden]

Hmm. I would have to agree with those that opine that the U.N. is great in theory but will most likely never be what it claims to be. The whole permanent, all-powerful, ruling council idea seems pretty undemocratic to me. I think that a rotating ruling council would be fair. Just rotate out who is on top every couple of years, that way every country has a chance to hook themselves up (thats basically all that the countries on top are doing anyways, not to mention the individuals that hold the actual seats).

[B~E]

While I agree that the veto right of the ruling council isn't working anymore, and that a democratic council would be both more efficiant and credible, I have to say that I disagree with a rotating ruling council. I oppose your idea mainly because not every nations deserve be there at a point or another, as you seem to suggest. To be on this council, you country need to have a huge base of economical, military power to at least make your decisions credible, and, above all, cultural power to be able to represent a certain region of Earth.

Also, the countries that can have a seat there needs to be carefully choosed. They need to be representative of the distribution of power and culture on Earth, so the decisions taken wont favore only one side. For exemple, a council with one member per great cultural zone (orthodox, sinic, japanese, hindu, western, north american, sounth american, midle-eastern and finaly, african.) would be much more relevent and accurate according to the current distribution of power than our modern council, which has 3 seat for the West, one for the Orthodox, and one for the sinic region.

A truly relevent council should have the following member : the USA, one seat for the European Union, Russia, China, Brasil, maybe Japan, and whoever should be the most fit to represent Africa and the muslim world, whish is a really tricky question, since those two region lack a real core state.

I'm really surpised there isnt more debate. I was hoping to see hardcore republicans and americans proclaiming that their country need to break away from the U.N, which would have been real fun to argue agaisnt. Maybe I should have taken a more controversial stance at the start of the topic.
Oh well.

[Biske]

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

How can you chose to forget about the myriad of utilities of the U.N ? the UNAIDS, the UNDP, the UNHCR, the UNFPA, and so forth?

Eh...never heard of em.

Or the fact that the U"N is one of the last institution where nations can still debate betwen each other.

Talk is cheap.

The UN is needed to keep superpowers from taking over the world

What do you think the UN is? Eh, no matter, you'll see eventually, real soon infact. I give it a year or two for the UN to show it's teeth.

[B~E]

So you never heard of the U.N's most basic and fundamental institutions, but you claim to know the hidden agenda of the U.N to take over the world, or whatever it was you were suggesting in that very vague post of yours ?

Plus, the U.N is the collective will of the world's powers, so it can't do jack on its own. There really is nothing to be afraid of.

[Biske]

US has it by the balls. US will take it over. Then, combined, they will become the next sudo world power. Just sit back and watch, I won't debate this with you, that's not my point to start a fight, I'm just saying...wait and watch.

And no, I have never heard of any of it's little factions; hidden agenda? It ain't hidden, you just gotta know where to look....hmm, that sounds like it's hidden, don't it, ahaha.

[B~E]

Well, it would sure be fun if you would at least have the decency to point us which direction to look at.

Anyway, it is my personal opinion that the U.S are, and will, be getting less and less involved with the U.N, and that the U.N will get even more democratic and less influencable by a single party. If the U.S wanted to take over, they had their chance long ago. I dont see how it would get any easier as time pass. As I said, in my first post, Koffi Annan asked a group of emminent folks to put on their thinking cap, and produce a report on how to improve the U.N. The report came in the first of december, and it generaly was in favor of involving even more countries in the U.N, and of making it more democratic. Hardly the best condition for a take over.

But really, im interested in your opinion about the real potential influence of the USa on the U.N, and its not like anybody is going to flame you in this forum for what you think. I'm not even asking you to defend your ground, but just to elaborate. Post ahead, come on.

[TheRulingArchon]

I hate the UN. It is the most corrupted organization in the universe.

It is rumored that if Kofi Annan was to step down, Bill Clinton would take his place. Without a doubt, that would be the sign of the apocolaypse.

[TrongaMonga]

Originally Posted by TrongaMonga

First, it is made by different cultures, and what one thinks to be correct, others will not. But, well, that's what democracy, in a way, is there for.

This is what you answered me:

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

The only problem with this is when a country with diverging interest use its veto power to block any actions by the rest of the group. But this can delt with by taking away the veto power, and replacing it with actual votes.

And I also said, in my first post,

Originally Posted by TrongaMonga

Second, as you said, rich countries (specially the founders), will not obey it, most times, anyway.

Now, I'll explain. The UN was supposed to be basicly an anti-war organization. But, how the hell will we do that in the near future, with such a superpower as the US abusing and not even caring about the UN? How do they do it? Using their economic power to scare other countries. True, they didn't said a thing. They didn't need to. However, only big countries like France and Germany (in Europe, I think that Canada too) stood against the US. Why? Because they already have a strong economy. That is mainly why I think we need veto votes, but not one for the US. It may sound like I'm calling the US some kind of monster, but well... It bloody well is. We only need to look at that situation of the war on Iraq to realize that. The US do not care about foreign treaties. It is their policy. "We will sign this treaty (long pause on speech [LPS]), but if anything (LPS), or anyone (LPS), in any way (LPS), will threathen the United States of America (LPS), we shall immediately revoke it and act as we see fit!" (long nationalist crowd ovations).

Every other country, at least mine, if peeing out of the toilet (as we say here, in slang ) gets a fine amount of money to pay as a fine. I never saw any kind of sanction to the US... Untill now.