A better United Nations

[Oddity]

I have seen a lot of UN-bashing and ranting about how completely useless the UN is, but to the best of my knowledge people is mysteriously silent about how a better UN would work.

Pretend that you are in charge of writing a report that will be used as a foundation for reforming the United Nations. What will you recommend?

[Oddity]

Bump.

No one?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I have seen a lot of UN-bashing and ranting about how completely useless the UN is, but to the best of my knowledge people is mysteriously silent about how a better UN would work.

Pretend that you are in charge of writing a report that will be used as a foundation for reforming the United Nations. What will you recommend?

Abolishing it and leaving it abolished. Well, the General Assembly and Security Council.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

An organization which exluded nations which violated the rights of their citizens would certainly be a step up. Right now any to bit butcher is welcomed into the U.N. if they have control of a piece o f land long enough to call it a country. The communist principles within the U.N> charters would a lso have to go to make it a valid organization. There would also ahve to be severe checks upon its power and authority, for instance it should never be able to collect anything but volunary revenue, and it should be forbidden, under penalty of dissolution, from h aving its own military force. Finally, there should be a stern commitment to inalienable rights- namely life, liberty, propery, and the pursuit of happiness- regardless of what circumstances might arise. All this would just be for starters for me to trust this orgainization or any organization like it.

[Oddity]

An organization which exluded nations which violated the rights of their citizens would certainly be a step up. Right now any to bit butcher is welcomed into the U.N. if they have control of a piece o f land long enough to call it a country. The communist principles within the U.N> charters would a lso have to go to make it a valid organization. There would also ahve to be severe checks upon its power and authority, for instance it should never be able to collect anything but volunary revenue, and it should be forbidden, under penalty of dissolution, from h aving its own military force. Finally, there should be a stern commitment to inalienable rights- namely life, liberty, propery, and the pursuit of happiness- regardless of what circumstances might arise. All this would just be for starters for me to trust this orgainization or any organization like it.

Doing most of all that would make a new UN even more toothless that it is today. I thought that the most common argument was that it wasn't effective enough?

Also, no peacekeeping forces?

[Montcalm]

The UN is really strong with its mouth but when its time to stop genocides like Rwanda,they send in peacekeepers and tell do not intervene let assholes kill unarmed civilians.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

An organization which exluded nations which violated the rights of their citizens would certainly be a step up. Right now any to bit butcher is welcomed into the U.N. if they have control of a piece o f land long enough to call it a country.

I agree. Libya is probably the example of this.

The communist principles within the U.N> charters would a lso have to go to make it a valid organization.

Communist principles?

There would also ahve to be severe checks upon its power and authority, for instance it should never be able to collect anything but volunary revenue, and it should be forbidden, under penalty of dissolution, from h aving its own military force.

I don't know about that...what happens if very powerful member nations don't want to support the U.N. militarily? Then the U.N. wouldn't have anything to work with.

Finally, there should be a stern commitment to inalienable rights- namely life, liberty, propery, and the pursuit of happiness- regardless of what circumstances might arise.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

I agree. Libya is probably the example of this.

Whoops. I meant to say: "Libya is probably the best example of this."

[kojikun]

Best United Nations idea: New British Empire.

Granted, the US is more up to the task, but I'm not terribly fond of how the US government is doing things right now. Besides, I know a couple of noblemen who sit in Parliament and thats just cool.

[RedImperator]

I'm perfectly happy with an impotent, useless United Nations. Let them concentrate on statistics gathering and doling out UNICEF money. I'm not willing to cede one shred of American sovereignty to an organization where Angola, Palau, and the Federated States of Micronesia have a say on issues that impact American security.

[Ignorant twit]

Its only military function would be joint defense. Everyone pays into the system as their governments choose, the only way to tap said funds is to get a supermajority vote, with voting being directly proportional to how much your nation pays in. The idea of the UN arbitrating a "just" war ignores the political reality of the world too much.

As far as peacekeeping, when it happens the only countries that get a say are those with TROOPS ON THE GROUND. Hell how about you have commitment a representative amount of troops for peacekeeping duty regardless of the outcome of the vote. Pulling out of peacekeeping missions resulting in the forfeiture of your vote on the next peacekeeping issue where you would otherwise qualify.

Thus it provides incentive for the major powers to seek UN mandate, does not bring up a huge political maelstorm if the vote doesn't go well, and gets rid of massive beurocratic nightmares.

In general there should be a human rights clause on your UN vote. This should be an OBJECTIVE, QUANTIFIABLE measure. No more of this pathetic pot and kettle crap.


In general the UN works well as a philanthropic organization, as a viable tool for policy it fails miserably.

[Master of Ossus]

The problem with the current UNSC is that it can't actually dictate policy. Everyone uses it to add legitamacy to whatever they want to see happen so long as the UNSC agrees with them, but as soon as they disagree they utterly ignore the UNSC. That's not a credible organization. What the UNSC needs is the authority to actually accomplish something, eliminate or at least limit the unilateral veto power of the five permanent members, and to reduce the amount of subjectivity within their resolutions through the use of more direct operative clauses.

[Archaic`]

http://apolyton.net/go.php?http://www.t ... 36432.html

Howard seeks to demote France in UN

Prime Minister John Howard wants to reform the United Nations, saying the presence of France as a permanent member of the Security Council "distorts" the council.

He wants Japan, a South American country and India to be represented on the Security Council. France was there only because it was a global power at the end of World War II, he said.

Asking France or any other permanent member of the Security Council to voluntarily surrender their seat was "a major undertaking", he conceded.

His comments risk the ire of France before the first visit to Australia by President Jacques Chirac, who is due in the country in July.

France angered the war coalition nations with its strong opposition to a second UN resolution backing military action. Once the troops went into Iraq, President Chirac was a vocal opponent of the war.



Mr Howard offered a compromise, which he said would make the UN more representative of the modern world - three levels of Security Council members, the permanent members, the rotating members and a new group of permanent members that had no veto. It would be "a far better expression of world opinion", he said.

Despite his criticism of the Security Council, Mr Howard said the UN had a complementary role to play in the reconstruction of Iraq. But the interim authority would be run by the US with help from Britain, Australia and others.

Mr Howard cautioned against moving too fast to a new Iraqi-controlled government, because the model had to be right. He suggested a federal system similar to Australia's could be suitable for Iraq. "When you reflect upon the strong Kurdish component in the north, the Shiite preponderance in the south and the Sunni preponderance in the middle, perhaps there is some merit in a federal experiment in Iraq," Mr Howard told the 13th Commonwealth Law Conference in Melbourne.

He mentioned the possible model with "some trepidation" in case he was accused of trying to impose an alien Australian solution on another country.

"But when you have strong ethnic and regional differences, it is only a federal system of government that perhaps might provide the means of holding the nation together."

Government officials said Australia's views on the shape of a postwar Iraqi government had been made known to the US and included two main principles - that it be determined by the Iraqi people and that it should allow for representatives of the three main groups and some further tribal groupings.

The Kurds should have a strong degree of autonomy, the officials said.

Australia has sent a number of officials to be part of the transitional authority headed by US retired general Jay Garner. The Department of Foreign Affairs official is Andrew Goledzinowski, an assistant secretary who has worked as a career diplomat and as the chief of staff to Mary Robinson, the former UN high commissioner for refugees.

Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd said Mr Howard should focus his intention on more immediate issues, such as the crisis at Baghdad's hospitals.

"The primary concern is to make sure the hospitals are no longer looted and medical supplies and services are being dispensed to the Iraqi people," Mr Rudd said.

Also yesterday, Mr Howard attacked "armchair generals" who criticised the conduct of the war, while it had run largely according to plan. "Of all the doomsday scenarios that were predicted, not one of them has been realised," he said

[Master of Ossus]

It's pretty tought to claim that France was a military power following World War II. It had lost control of virtually all of its colonies; its military and governments were in disarray; its industrial areas had been seriously damaged during the war; it was in deep financial trouble, and it was seriously contemplating communism. It's a testament to the completely destroyed world that France was still considered powerful at all following the conflict, much less a "world power." I think that he meant it was comparatively powerful, and strategically important, following World War II, since it really didn't have much influence over the world outside of Europe at the time.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It's pretty tought to claim that France was a military power following World War II. It had lost control of virtually all of its colonies; its military and governments were in disarray; its industrial areas had been seriously damaged during the war; it was in deep financial trouble, and it was seriously contemplating communism. It's a testament to the completely destroyed world that France was still considered powerful at all following the conflict, much less a "world power." I think that he meant it was comparatively powerful, and strategically important, following World War II, since it really didn't have much influence over the world outside of Europe at the time.

France actually didn't start losing colonies to speak of until the mid-fifties.

[Master of Ossus]

It's pretty tought to claim that France was a military power following World War II. It had lost control of virtually all of its colonies; its military and governments were in disarray; its industrial areas had been seriously damaged during the war; it was in deep financial trouble, and it was seriously contemplating communism. It's a testament to the completely destroyed world that France was still considered powerful at all following the conflict, much less a "world power." I think that he meant it was comparatively powerful, and strategically important, following World War II, since it really didn't have much influence over the world outside of Europe at the time.

France actually didn't start losing colonies to speak of until the mid-fifties.

Are you seriously claiming that the French government was in control of Indo-China in 1946?

[paladin]

Best United Nations idea: New British Empire.

Better idea: New Roman Empire! Bring back the old days when the Legions fought for the Glory of Caesar! Also, we can toss fundies to the lions. And eco-nazis, too!

[Sea Skimmer]

Are you seriously claiming that the French government was in control of Indo-China in 1946?

You claimed France at once lost all its coloines, it had a damn lot more then Indochina and it did retain quite alot of control there into the 50's.

[Enforcer Talen]

Best United Nations idea: New British Empire.

Better idea: New Roman Empire! Bring back the old days when the Legions fought for the Glory of Caesar! Also, we can toss fundies to the lions. And eco-nazis, too!

new american empire. but with coliseums.

best of both worlds ^_^

[Montcalm]

Best United Nations idea: New British Empire.

Better idea: New Roman Empire! Bring back the old days when the Legions fought for the Glory of Caesar! Also, we can toss fundies to the lions. And eco-nazis, too!

new american empire. but with coliseums.

best of both worlds ^_^

I have the feeling the American empire will not last through the 21th century.

[Master of Ossus]

Are you seriously claiming that the French government was in control of Indo-China in 1946?

You claimed France at once lost all its coloines, it had a damn lot more then Indochina and it did retain quite alot of control there into the 50's.

Actually, I claimed that it had lost control over virtually all of its colonies. That was a true statement.

[Joe]

Article 29, Section 3 from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

Scary.

[Joe]

Better idea: New Roman Empire! Bring back the old days when the Legions fought for the Glory of Caesar! Also, we can toss fundies to the lions. And eco-nazis, too!

new american empire. but with coliseums.

best of both worlds ^_^

I have the feeling the American empire will not last through the 21th century.

Assuming it is born at some point during the 21st century.

[Enforcer Talen]

course it wont last. nothing does.

[Tragic]

I believe as long as democracy is around the U.S. will be there. U.S. power in the world may decline but it will always be there.