How do you reform the UN?

[Sarevok]

Removing veto powers would be nice.

[BoredShirtless]

Removing veto powers would be nice.

Why?

[PainRack]

You have been given unlimited power over the UN, how do you reform it?

A reform of the organisation executive powers.

1. The United Nations will now have the right to create a security organisation, along the lines of UN policemen, which will take over the role of providing basic security from member nations. This will assist in ensuring that all UN or other international organisations working in unsecure areas can always hope to have a rapid security response. Since I will need unlimited power over the United States to do what I really want, to create a rapid response, light infantry force for basic security, while relying on mercenaries to create scratch peacekeeping forces while awaiting peacekeeper forces from member nations, I keep away from there

2. Create a new central focus on debates in the UN. The UNGA will be for the exclusive debate of legislative matters, whereas the UNSC will be for executive directives only. At the moment, members excluded from the UNSC usually attempt to snipe at security debates that properly remain in the UNSC and vice versa.

3. Reform the finanicial aspects of the UN. For one, tighter finanicial accounting is neccesary and unncessary spending cut.( send in the British Exchequer). For another, piroritising and budgeting of peacekeeping missions could do with another jolt.

4. Kill paperwork.

5. Rationalise work scope of the various agencies, streamline resources that are currently being duplicated(IAEA vs some atomic energy group in Vienna)..............

[Sarevok]

Removing veto powers would be nice.

Why?

Removing the veto powers would help make the UN more democratic.

[BoredShirtless]

Removing veto powers would be nice.

Why?

Removing the veto powers would help make the UN more democratic.

How?

[Vympel]

How?

I think what he's implying (but didn't say- hence making the no veto thing sound outrageous) would be that majority rules.

[Coyote]

The UN is silly-- the most undemocratic nations in the world (which outnumber the democratic ones) get to use the democratic process to outvote the democratic nations.

That said, I think the UN needs some sort of standing military, recruited from among all the world's member nations. It does not have to be very big or strong, just enough to clamp down on the brushfire wars like Rwanda.... the biggest problem with peacekeeping missions is that the alliance-building is tedious and time consuming. A UN army, deployable immediately, does not have to wait around.

[SirNitram]

The UN is silly-- the most undemocratic nations in the world (which outnumber the democratic ones) get to use the democratic process to outvote the democratic nations.

That said, I think the UN needs some sort of standing military, recruited from among all the world's member nations. It does not have to be very big or strong, just enough to clamp down on the brushfire wars like Rwanda.... the biggest problem with peacekeeping missions is that the alliance-building is tedious and time consuming. A UN army, deployable immediately, does not have to wait around.

It will be called GDI. Their elite force will be Dead Six. And they'll have a giant orbital gun.

[Vympel]

The UN is silly-- the most undemocratic nations in the world (which outnumber the democratic ones) get to use the democratic process to outvote the democratic nations.

Not really- the General Assembly doesn't mean anything. But they don't vote on democratic/undemocratic lines anyway.

That said, I think the UN needs some sort of standing military, recruited from among all the world's member nations. It does not have to be very big or strong, just enough to clamp down on the brushfire wars like Rwanda.... the biggest problem with peacekeeping missions is that the alliance-building is tedious and time consuming. A UN army, deployable immediately, does not have to wait around.

Who's going to pony up and give up their men for it though? Where's it gonna be based? Very tough questions.

[Coyote]

That said, I think the UN needs some sort of standing military, recruited from among all the world's member nations. ...

Who's going to pony up and give up their men for it though? Where's it gonna be based? Very tough questions.

True, and each answer brings more questions. But I see it this way-- a UN recruiting office would be available much like any other recruiting office. You sign on for a certain number of years and during that time you volunteer to become a citizen of the UN rather than of your home country. This is one of the stumbling blocks-- a temporary suspension of citizenship, basically.

This means a nation can't get in a snit and say, "allright, all you Bangladeshis, come on out, we're taking our toys and going home!"

Nations-- especially small ones-- could get a lowering of UN dues if they host bases. These bases will also help contribute to the security of the host nation. So a small country like, say, Senegal, could host a division of UN troops-- and under the UN cherter of collective security, anyone trying to invade Senegal would meet immediate resistance from thr UN troops as well as the Senegalese. This would allow Senegal to ease back its own defense expenditures and divert that money to the people.

The prescence of UN troops would provide an economic boom to local merchants as well (well, that includes prostitutes and bars, but, well, they pay taxes too).

This army could never be so big as to threaten the soveriengty of nations like the US or Europe or whatever-- a few divisions, spread around the world, pre-deployed in hot spots so the US and EU won't have to. A good PR boost for those who want to keep the troops at home, but an outlet for idealistic First Worlders who want to go out and do something.

True, due to the pay incentives, most of the troops would come from poor nations, and lead to arguments about making the world's poor fight. But large wars would still have to be approved by UN vote, and lets face it, this would still provide more opportunity for many than leaving them to sit in their run down homelands.

This is of course the very short version, and comes across as very pie-in-the-sky.

[Knife]

Who's going to pony up and give up their men for it though? Where's it gonna be based? Very tough questions.

True, and each answer brings more questions. But I see it this way-- a UN recruiting office would be available much like any other recruiting office. You sign on for a certain number of years and during that time you volunteer to become a citizen of the UN rather than of your home country. This is one of the stumbling blocks-- a temporary suspension of citizenship, basically.

This means a nation can't get in a snit and say, "allright, all you Bangladeshis, come on out, we're taking our toys and going home!"

Nations-- especially small ones-- could get a lowering of UN dues if they host bases. These bases will also help contribute to the security of the host nation. So a small country like, say, Senegal, could host a division of UN troops-- and under the UN cherter of collective security, anyone trying to invade Senegal would meet immediate resistance from thr UN troops as well as the Senegalese. This would allow Senegal to ease back its own defense expenditures and divert that money to the people.

The prescence of UN troops would provide an economic boom to local merchants as well (well, that includes prostitutes and bars, but, well, they pay taxes too).

This army could never be so big as to threaten the soveriengty of nations like the US or Europe or whatever-- a few divisions, spread around the world, pre-deployed in hot spots so the US and EU won't have to. A good PR boost for those who want to keep the troops at home, but an outlet for idealistic First Worlders who want to go out and do something.

True, due to the pay incentives, most of the troops would come from poor nations, and lead to arguments about making the world's poor fight. But large wars would still have to be approved by UN vote, and lets face it, this would still provide more opportunity for many than leaving them to sit in their run down homelands.

This is of course the very short version, and comes across as very pie-in-the-sky.[/quote]

Something akin to the foreign legion? Volunteer's from around the world to fight for the UN.

Technicly I'd guess it would work, but I'd think it would rapidly turn into a rent-a-cop style securtiy detail rather than a military unit with all of the beuracracy of the UN.

[SirNitram]

There's the issue of getting the equipment and funds, though, which is hardest. And I somehow doubt the solution from my sci-fi writings will work.

[Coyote]

There's the issue of getting the equipment and funds, though, which is hardest. And I somehow doubt the solution from my sci-fi writings will work.

Wealthier nations could get incentives (lower dues) for providing materiel and equipment.

Also, the technical training that the poor-nation soldiers get from working on the advanced stuff will give them an exposure to technology that they would not have had back home.

[Sea Skimmer]

An independent UN military would easily cost more then all other UN programs combined time five, while being unable to defeat any military or guerrilla force of noticeable strength nor sustain any form of long term garrison. No one would be willing to pay for it, while recruiting and language issues would be crippling to efficiency.

[Sea Skimmer]

Wealthier nations could get incentives (lower dues) for providing materiel and equipment.

Thats the end of the UN then. Simply paying for the maintenance of one modern division would cost several billion dollars per year. The UN doesnt have the kind of money to spare.

Also, the technical training that the poor-nation soldiers get from working on the advanced stuff will give them an exposure to technology that they would not have had back home.

Great, billions more that must be spent training the personal before any use can be gotten out of them. Hears a better idea, use the money to set up technical schools in the third world.

[Andrew J.]

If I were put in charge of the UN, I'd embezzle its entire budget and use diplomatic immunity to commit petty crimes all over the world.

[Colonel Olrik]

An independent UN military would easily cost more then all other UN programs combined time five, while being unable to defeat any military or guerrilla force of noticeable strength nor sustain any form of long term garrison. No one would be willing to pay for it, while recruiting and language issues would be crippling to efficiency.

It's being difficult to create a quick force E.U fighting unit, and the E.U is united and has the means in a way the U.N will never be.

[Mitth`raw`nuruodo]

I'd remove the permanent nations in the security council, and change some stuff to fit that.

[SecondStorm]

Two-drink minimum.

Are you sure you want to turn it into the House of Commons (UK) or the Senate (Australia)?

Trust me it is funny but, damn is it viscous!

'Mr Speaker as my learned collegue-' PM

'Boooo' Opposition

'Mr Speaker, the leader of the opposition-' PM

'Booooo, roar!' Opposition

'Mr Speaker, as I was saying-' PM

'Boooo, you are an idiot!' Opposition

'Mr, Speaker - Oh fuck off! Bollocks you bastard, bollocks!'

'Booooo!' Opposition

'Bollocks you bastard, fuck off-' PM

'Could someone please remove Ms Thatcher from the chamber!' Speaker

Ive always found it highly amusing that the "gentle and noble" englishmen actually "booo" at their PM .

I would have been surprised if the aussies didnt hehe .

(massive barrages of stereotypes ahoy !)

[Sarevok]

How?

Veto powers limited to only five permanent security council members. This is highly undemocratic as these five countries can veto whatever the rest of the world thinks. Also this five countries are permenent members who were not democraticaly elected. This is very unfair from the point of view of the rest of the world.

[Sea Skimmer]

Veto powers limited to only five permanent security council members. This is highly undemocratic as these five countries can veto whatever the rest of the world thinks. Also this five countries are permenent members who were not democraticaly elected. This is very unfair from the point of view of the rest of the world.

Yeah, they merely did the overwhelming majority of the work in protecting the world from Hitler and the Japanese in a little thing called WW2 before going on the create the organization, though the term United Nations dates to early 1942 when it refer to the Allied Powers.

[Sarevok]

Yeah, they merely did the overwhelming majority of the work in protecting the world from Hitler and the Japanese in a little thing called WW2 before going on the create the organization, though the term United Nations dates to early 1942 when it refer to the Allied Powers.

The world today is vastly different from 1939 so the comparision with the League of Nations does not hold. Unlike the League of Nations the UN consists of free and independent nations instead of European colonial powers.

The claim that the UN is spineless without veto power is wrong. The UN apears to be powerless because of veto powers. Whenever a resolution is passed that one of the pemanent security council members do not like they simply veto it. Take case of US protecting Israel by vetoing any UN resolution that the Israelis do not like. This is simply wrong as the US is acting against the will of rest of the world.

[Sea Skimmer]

The world today is vastly different from 1939 so the comparision with the League of Nations does not hold. Unlike the League of Nations the UN consists of free and independent nations instead of European colonial powers.

WTF? I did not mention the League of Nations at all. I am talking about how the current UN was formed. The term and joint effort that directly led to its creation was that of the United Nations of WW2, more commonly referred to now as the Allies.

[Aeolus]

How?

Veto powers limited to only five permanent security council members. This is highly undemocratic as these five countries can veto whatever the rest of the world thinks. Also this five countries are permenent members who were not democraticaly elected. This is very unfair from the point of view of the rest of the world.

Those 5 were at the creation of the UN the only remaining great powers. Considering that those 5 working in concert can control the whole world, why on why on earth would they even pretend to listen to the UN without veto powers?

[Coyote]

Wealthier nations could get incentives (lower dues) for providing materiel and equipment.

Thats the end of the UN then. Simply paying for the maintenance of one modern division would cost several billion dollars per year. The UN doesnt have the kind of money to spare.

True, especially if modern politics prevails. The member nations have to determine what kind of cost-to-benefits they want from the UN. Funding a UN division that can put out world hotspots quickly is expensive-- but then, so is letting those hotspots fester until the press browbeats the world into 'doing something' ill-concieved and half-assed like the Rwanda mission.

If the member states decide that it is in their best interests to support an international fire brigade, it can be done-- but for now, the political support does not exist.

Also, the technical training that the poor-nation soldiers get from working on the advanced stuff will give them an exposure to technology that they would not have had back home.

Great, billions more that must be spent training the personal before any use can be gotten out of them. Hears a better idea, use the money to set up technical schools in the third world.

That would be the better choice, but we have that option now and no one is using it.