Fix the UN!

[Enforcer Talen]

withdraw and start a new organization that abides by the un charter. no police states need apply.

Which would work if the UN's problems weren't inherent to the system as setup in the charter.

declaration of human rights, excuse me.

trust in the expansion of democracy.

[Stormbringer]

withdraw and start a new organization that abides by the un charter. no police states need apply.

Which would work if the UN's problems weren't inherent to the system as setup in the charter.

declaration of human rights, excuse me.

trust in the expansion of democracy.

That part is pretty good.

I don't trust in that; democracy isn't some universal inevitable.

[RedImperator]

Remove the veto's.

Any reform plan that involves the Big Five giving up their vetos will fail. The price you pay for the biggest powers on the planet playing along with everyone else is a guarantee everyone else can't force them to do something they don't want to do. The veto actually helps preserve some of the UN's legitimacy, as opposed to the Security Council passing a resolution against the wishes of one of the big five and that country subsequently ignoring it.

[PainRack]

All in all, the UN couldn't do anything militarily on its own. Even if it had mercs, it would need a shit load of them for alot of the missions the UN would like to take on. The UN having a large mercenary military would be a threat to many a nation. Destructive politics to follow.

Except that mercs often and usually play a vital role in the first phase of a "peacekeeping" operation. Evacuating European/US citizens, foreign aid/medical/businessmen personnel out. If the US, Britain, France or Australia doesn't contribute such forces to evacuate such personnel at all, they usually get stuck behind.

Can I also know what is it that one demands the UN do? The UN main purpose is to spread "peace, prosperity and the betterment of mankind" through the tools of "discussion and negoiation."

[Durandal]

I don't get all this animosity toward the UN. Are they an effective international peacekeeping force? Not really, but that's not their only function. As Vympel said before, there are tons of UN-coordinated groups all around the world doing wonderful humanitarian things in third-world countries.

If the UN really wanted to be an effective peacekeeping force, it'd need its own military.

[Spyder]

Remove the Vetos and enable it to work as a true democracy. Unfortunately the only way to do this would be to tear it down and start again. The UN is corrupted and unreformable thanks to a certain super power that likes to veto any attempt at reform.

[Spyder]

Remove the veto's.

Any reform plan that involves the Big Five giving up their vetos will fail. The price you pay for the biggest powers on the planet playing along with everyone else is a guarantee everyone else can't force them to do something they don't want to do. The veto actually helps preserve some of the UN's legitimacy, as opposed to the Security Council passing a resolution against the wishes of one of the big five and that country subsequently ignoring it.

Oh heaven forbid the big 5 should actually SUPPORT the democratic process.

[Stofsk]

Remove the Vetos and enable it to work as a true democracy. Unfortunately the only way to do this would be to tear it down and start again. The UN is corrupted and unreformable thanks to a certain super power that likes to veto any attempt at reform.

There are five permanent members, and each of them put their own interests first. I'm not sure you can put it all on the head and shoulders of one 'certain superpower'.

[Spyder]

Remove the Vetos and enable it to work as a true democracy. Unfortunately the only way to do this would be to tear it down and start again. The UN is corrupted and unreformable thanks to a certain super power that likes to veto any attempt at reform.

There are five permanent members, and each of them put their own interests first. I'm not sure you can put it all on the head and shoulders of one 'certain superpower'.

You can when that certain superpower's useage of the veto was second only to the USSR.

[Coyote]

There are five permanent members, and each of them put their own interests first. I'm not sure you can put it all on the head and shoulders of one 'certain superpower'.

You can when that certain superpower's useage of the veto was second only to the USSR.

Spyder, bear in mind that representative democray or parliamentary republics are very rare in the world. Something like 2/3rds of the world governments are still run by kings, dictators, 'hereditary presidents-for-life, generals, warlords, ayatollahs, and other strongmen.

Having any of the Big Five, much less 'a certain one', bow to the wishes of this collection of rabble is not necessarily the best way to serve freedom and humane principles. Use of a veto is not an automatic damnation.

[RedImperator]

Remove the veto's.

Any reform plan that involves the Big Five giving up their vetos will fail. The price you pay for the biggest powers on the planet playing along with everyone else is a guarantee everyone else can't force them to do something they don't want to do. The veto actually helps preserve some of the UN's legitimacy, as opposed to the Security Council passing a resolution against the wishes of one of the big five and that country subsequently ignoring it.

Oh heaven forbid the big 5 should actually SUPPORT the democratic process.

Oh please. An organization where all the representatives are appointed by their home governments isn't democratic by any stretch of the imagination, and that's ignoring the fact that 2/3 of the governments represented by your "democratic" organization are dictatorships of one type or another.

And while we're on the subject, even if the UN WERE democratic, why should sovereign nations act against their own interests and the interests of their citizens just because a decision has been made to do so democratically? The first duty of a state is to act in the interests of its people, and it's a dereliction of that duty for a state to act against those interests for the sake of some fuzzy headed commitment to a "democratic process" that doesn't even exist.

[Enforcer Talen]

Which would work if the UN's problems weren't inherent to the system as setup in the charter.

declaration of human rights, excuse me.

trust in the expansion of democracy.

That part is pretty good.

I don't trust in that; democracy isn't some universal inevitable.

6 months ago I would have argued it was, but russia and usa have disillusioned me of late.

Ill argue that it should be a goal, if not considered an inevitability.

[Knife]

All in all, the UN couldn't do anything militarily on its own. Even if it had mercs, it would need a shit load of them for alot of the missions the UN would like to take on. The UN having a large mercenary military would be a threat to many a nation. Destructive politics to follow.

Except that mercs often and usually play a vital role in the first phase of a "peacekeeping" operation. Evacuating European/US citizens, foreign aid/medical/businessmen personnel out. If the US, Britain, France or Australia doesn't contribute such forces to evacuate such personnel at all, they usually get stuck behind.

I don't deney that, but if the UN was to rely on mercs alone for their forces so as to have an effective paramilitary units that you won't have to worry about political in fighting with the nations, you'll have a shit load of mercs and that would be a threat to alot of countries.

Can I also know what is it that one demands the UN do? The UN main purpose is to spread "peace, prosperity and the betterment of mankind" through the tools of "discussion and negoiation."

And it hasn't, so I can only determine that its a failure and its time to try something else. They're relief organizations and humanitarian organizations are good, and I don't befret them any. But the larger, partent organization that is suppost to have a forum to have the nations babble at each other is worthless.[/quote]

[Stormbringer]

6 months ago I would have argued it was, but russia and usa have disillusioned me of late.

Democracy does not mean that you get what you want. And indeed democracies are as often badly run as not.

Ill argue that it should be a goal, if not considered an inevitability.

It should be a goal but there are plenty of tinpot dictators, relgious nutjobs, and fat monarchs that would stand in the way. And as we've seen, morons given democracy will inevitably make a mess of it; some people are better off in dictatorship.

[PainRack]

I don't deney that, but if the UN was to rely on mercs alone for their forces so as to have an effective paramilitary units that you won't have to worry about political in fighting with the nations, you'll have a shit load of mercs and that would be a threat to alot of countries.

Except that the level of troops the UN really needs, is just not on the level to threaten any real military. Again, what I'm advocating for is some form of light infantry, with transport assets to secure a area temporarily, so that evacuations and flow of aid can begin.
This provides the kind of quick response the UN lacks. Currently, other nations like the UK, USA, France and Australia provides this quick response. For example, in Somalia, it was US marines which secured the airpot, so that food supplies can flow, after the initial UN foray was repulsed by warlords. This normalisation allowed for the slower process of member nations providing for a UN peacekeeping task force to complete and deploy to the area.

Such a force is still ineffective due to the poor quality of troops involved, but at least, the main hindrance to independent UN peacekeeping is neutralised.

And it hasn't, so I can only determine that its a failure and its time to try something else. They're relief organizations and humanitarian organizations are good, and I don't befret them any. But the larger, partent organization that is suppost to have a forum to have the nations babble at each other is worthless.

[/quote]
And by what standards has it failed?

Frankly, I detect a sense of disillusion amongst UN haters. They either belon to idealists who believe the UN should be capable of much more, or are conservatives who decry the UN is too idealist and as such, will always fail due to reality.

All this ignores the fact that the UN is realpolitik at work, using realpolitik to settle outstanding affairs in the world, allowing "opponents" to be able to acquire benefits without having to go to war or an ostendious display of gunboat diplomacy.

[Knife]

Except that the level of troops the UN really needs, is just not on the level to threaten any real military. Again, what I'm advocating for is some form of light infantry, with transport assets to secure a area temporarily, so that evacuations and flow of aid can begin.
This provides the kind of quick response the UN lacks. Currently, other nations like the UK, USA, France and Australia provides this quick response. For example, in Somalia, it was US marines which secured the airpot, so that food supplies can flow, after the initial UN foray was repulsed by warlords. This normalisation allowed for the slower process of member nations providing for a UN peacekeeping task force to complete and deploy to the area.

Such a force is still ineffective due to the poor quality of troops involved, but at least, the main hindrance to independent UN peacekeeping is neutralised.

Conceeded, though it will be a balencing act. The USMC is a force structure the size of most other countries Army. But a small reaction force wouldn't raise too many eyebrows.

And by what standards has it failed?

Please point out the peace, prosperity and the betterment of mankind it has spread through the tools of discussion and negoiation.

With the relief organizations you can argue the 'betterment' but what peace has it made? What prosperity, other than its own?

Frankly, I detect a sense of disillusion amongst UN haters. They either belon to idealists who believe the UN should be capable of much more, or are conservatives who decry the UN is too idealist and as such, will always fail due to reality.

The UN is a counterdiction in terms, in that to work, the nations have to give up power, and do stuff not in that nations interests. What nation is going to do that? It can't work. Thus its useless. As a forum to disscuss and debate international issues, its bogged down in pathetic self interests. Its the hammer that big guys gave the little guys, so the little guys could slam the big guys with it.

All this ignores the fact that the UN is realpolitik at work, using realpolitik to settle outstanding affairs in the world, allowing "opponents" to be able to acquire benefits without having to go to war or an ostendious display of gunboat diplomacy.

The UN is a layer of beauracracy between the world and real politik. They wish they were the grease of the wheel of the world, but they ain't.

[PainRack]

Please point out the peace, prosperity and the betterment of mankind it has spread through the tools of discussion and negoiation.

With the relief organizations you can argue the 'betterment' but what peace has it made? What prosperity, other than its own?

The UN as the GNSC has made into canon laws that were the result of treaties, applicable to all UN members, thus further providing for the enshrinement of international law.

Disputes which would had been resolved with gunboat diplomacy or military confrontation, like the economic exclusion zones around naval waters are now settled through disscussion and debate.

The UN is a counterdiction in terms, in that to work, the nations have to give up power, and do stuff not in that nations interests. What nation is going to do that? It can't work. Thus its useless.

Wrong. In order to work, the nations have to use diplomacy and politics to maneveur around, to play a huge game of Surivivor so as to manipulate the situation to get what you want. Thus, the United States conceded that Soviet "international" operations could go ahead, if US operations in South America was allowed to go ahead.

This prevented a head on clash between two powers. The UN is a tool. Who utilises it best, wins. Just because the US has a stupid president who can't manipulate the tool as well as Chirac and other small fry who don't come out of Ivy League schools doesn't mean its worthless.

As a forum to disscuss and debate international issues, its bogged down in pathetic self interests. Its the hammer that big guys gave the little guys, so the little guys could slam the big guys with it.

Being one of the little guys, I don't see what's so bad about it, especially when the big guys dangle money and economic interests to dominate the talks otherwise.

[Knife]

The UN as the GNSC has made into canon laws that were the result of treaties, applicable to all UN members, thus further providing for the enshrinement of international law.

Disputes which would had been resolved with gunboat diplomacy or military confrontation, like the economic exclusion zones around naval waters are now settled through disscussion and debate.

International law exsisted before it, and will after it. They are not needed for international law, and in fact, depend on it more than Iternational Law depends on them.

Gunboat diplomacy and military confrotation has its place, and to squash them (not that the UN has) is silly. Like I said, the UN is a layer of beuarcracy for international affairs. Like most beuarcracies, things would probably go quicker and more efficiently with out them.

Wrong. In order to work, the nations have to use diplomacy and politics to maneveur around, to play a huge game of Surivivor so as to manipulate the situation to get what you want. Thus, the United States conceded that Soviet "international" operations could go ahead, if US operations in South America was allowed to go ahead.

Nations played this game before the UN, I don't see why the UN is needed for it. Again, the UN needs games like this more than the game needs it.

This prevented a head on clash between two powers. The UN is a tool. Who utilises it best, wins. Just because the US has a stupid president who can't manipulate the tool as well as Chirac and other small fry who don't come out of Ivy League schools doesn't mean its worthless.

And when you pay 25% (might be wrong on that number) of the tool and it gets used to clunk you over the head alot, you get to question why you need the tool. And the damn thing has been broke alot longer than how long Bush has been in office. So I don't know why you worked that in there.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Disputes which would had been resolved with gunboat diplomacy or military confrontation, like the economic exclusion zones around naval waters are now settled through disscussion and debate.

[Coyote]

Knife, the UN probably gives a lot of the "little guys" of the world the only forum where their voices can be heard, and to be honest I think that is indespensable.

If the Little Guys don't get to have a voice, what incentive do they have to even contemplate diplomacy when every confrontation betwen them and a larger power-- any larger power-- will basically result in them bending over somehow?

The problem is that things sometimes go to far the other way-- resentful petit warlords and kings ganging up on larger powers simply for the chance to dogpile a big guy and bring them to concessions. And it is probably not for the benefiot of the smaller nations people, but some fat-cat deal to enrich their corrupt rulers. Thus the cycle perpetuates.

I still say the UN provides an invaluable tool for what it does best-- serve as a planning room to coordinate medical missions, disaster relief, and similar low-key, "unsexy" projects that garner little attention.

The UN needs a lot of reform, not just anti-corruption reform but a vast restructuring and modern redefining of just exactly what it's goals are and how it is to achieve them. Basically the amount of reform it needs would result in it being a whole new organization with the same letterhead, but I think it can be done if nations were both serious about committing and even the dreamers would be realistic about what can, indeed, be accomplished.

[Enforcer Talen]

6 months ago I would have argued it was, but russia and usa have disillusioned me of late.

Democracy does not mean that you get what you want. And indeed democracies are as often badly run as not.

Ill argue that it should be a goal, if not considered an inevitability.

It should be a goal but there are plenty of tinpot dictators, relgious nutjobs, and fat monarchs that would stand in the way. And as we've seen, morons given democracy will inevitably make a mess of it; some people are better off in dictatorship.

democracies are the worst of all govts, except we've tried all the others. given what Ive seen of other attempts, a democracy with balance of power seems a lot better - even if the vote doesnt go my way

the religious nutjobs seem insistent on killing themselves for god, so I expect we're going to oblige them over the next few years. ideally, we'd be working on teaching people democracy in nondemocratic states so they arent so moronic about it - invading with 3 marine divisions doesnt quite work that way.

[Axis Kast]

The major powers won't consience a proactive U.N. with the capability to interfere with their agendas on a material level. Many still refuse to view the U.N. as anything more than a bargaining ground where one side hypocritically and self-servingly "gangs up" on another.

The minor powers, as said before, simply don't have the resources to provide anything meaningful on the other hand.