United Nations - (no spam)

[Mr Sleep]

I was recently debating the effectiveness of the UN with an aquaintence of mine, in this discussion he said that the UN are completely ineffectual and he would rather that they disband, I asked him what alternative could possibly be found...at this point we were both stumped, so what is SYM's suggestion for an alternative?

I personally think an UN commision is very much needed, the world needs someone to make every nation accountable, if a nation gets out of control the world needs some kind of sanctions, so I say keep them, but perhaps they need a reshuffle.

[CM]

I agree it is ineffective because countries have the veto power. You are basically saying 5 can decide the faith of the world.
1 vote 1 nation would work well and you use international concensus.

[Weasel]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Sleep I personally think an UN commision is very much needed, the world needs someone to make every nation accountable, if a nation gets out of control the world needs some kind of sanctions, so I say keep them, but perhaps they need a reshuffle.

I can see where the other person is coming from on "the UN are completely ineffectual and he would rather that they disband." Some will look at the UN and be reminded of the League of Nations...a failure.

Enforcement is what the UN needs. The reason sanctions will not work is because it is not enforced. For the last 4 years, the US and the rest of the World has let 'some of ' the enforcement of UN sanctions lag, and I believe this is the main reason some see the UN as ineffective. Yes the US and British patrol the skys in Iraq...but I hardly call this enforcement.

[Obsidian]

Hmm, I believe the League of Nations was a lot less effective the the UN.

Perhaps the time of certain UN powers has faded. Originally it set out do do good, and it still does much good. The security council however has definately seen the end of it's days. Albeit their veto power is over defense matters only, it is still far to powerful. Removing them would be key, and going to a one nation one vote, something NOT based on populace, where china would always control 20% of the vote... be a nice change from the US, or more likely a worse change.

An international body of nations should exist, but certain more powerful members flaunt their ability to ignore the rules and disrupt the credibility of the entire organization.

[Bishop]

AAAAAHH! A one country one vote policy at the UN would be MADNESS!.

I say, yes, we should definately keep the UN. Its mere illusion of a world united is necessary for the functions of the UN.

I am an American. I believe in freedom and equality. But letting the countries of the world share power (with equal voting) is crazy. The United States and Great Brittain almost completely supply the UN with money, troops, and equipment. I say that if the countries of the world want equal votes they ought to have equal responsability. You may spam me as a bigot if you like, but I am NOT. I say that the votes on the UN should be proportianal to the money, troops, and equipment you provide for their function. The ONLY time a one country one vote policy would work is when all the nations of the world are shouldering the burden of the UN equaly.

-Bishop

[Dottie]

@Bishop: This does ofcourse connects to what you want the UN to achive, If your goal is to give powerfull and rich nations cart blanch in dealing with the rest of the word aswell as the ability to justify their actions by an international and (perhaps) respected organisation then i find you idea excellent.

I do however think that we should strive to make money and millitary resources matter less, not more, in international affairs, and then a one nation one vote policy would be a step forward.

[Lazarus]

Get rid of the whole thing. Any organization which gives equal hearing to nations such as China (pick any inhumane regime here) on the one hand, and Sweden (pick any relatively humane regime here) on the other, is not a just organization. Actually, considering China has a permanent seat on the security council, and veto power, it is in fact given more voice than Sweden. That is just plain wrong.

[Dottie]

@Lazarus: Dont you think there is any practical problems with, in an unbiased way, trying to quantify a gouvernments "humanitarian value"?

Giving equal hearing to imoral and moral alike is imo one of the drawbacks of democracy. still, I find it a very bearable drawback considering the alternatives...

[BaronTx]

Picture the UN without the support it receives from the US and GB. They would be toothless. Any sanctions or resolutions it would pass wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. Furthermore, it would allow China (a regime that has absolutely no qualms about using strong arm tactics or blatant force) to make the UN its puppet. You might not like US policy, but at least they are concerned about world opinion.

Also, consider this, what would have happened in the Balkans without US and GB leadership? If I remember right the EU was hesitant at best to project force into the region so ethnic cleansing would be stopped. They looked to the US to lead the way.

One last thing to think about. Would Israel still exist if the US foreign policy wasn't what it was and still is?

[Mr Sleep]

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus Get rid of the whole thing. Any organization which gives equal hearing to nations such as China (pick any inhumane regime here) on the one hand, and Sweden (pick any relatively humane regime here) on the other, is not a just organization. Actually, considering China has a permanent seat on the security council, and veto power, it is in fact given more voice than Sweden. That is just plain wrong.

What is the alternative?

@Baron, I think the reason that the US are so pro Israel is due to oil, I can't see America ditching Israel until the oil supply in that region runs out. That is just my cynical view though

[Lazarus]

@Dottie and Mr Sleep: alternative? Here is the alternative: all nations interact with one another by choice, and through mutual consent. You'll forgive me if I seem a bit sceptical, but what the heck does the UN do right now?

It tries to maintain some kind of peace in various places ... while it closes its eyes to (or, worse gives sanction to!) the wholesale evil of states such as China or the former Soviet Union.

It provides a forum for opinions which, IMO, are ridiculous - such as global environmental policy, and third world debt relief.

It creates a state such as Isreal, with no regard to what problems such a "solution" to the Jewish homeland might create - and then it labels Isreal as a criminal state for trying to defend itself from terrorist attacks.

Did I miss anything?

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of a global forum for leaders of all nations. Indeed, I think such a thing is desireable. But the UN structure (as I pointed out in my first post) is morally corrupt, and at this time I see nothing so very worthwhile coming out of the organization for all the money being put into it.

[Mr Sleep]

I misunderstood, I thought you were suggesting we ditch the idea of having a committee at all. I tend to agree with you then.

[HighLordDave]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Sleep @Baron, I think the reason that the US are so pro Israel is due to oil, I can't see America ditching Israel until the oil supply in that region runs out. That is just my cynical view though

Not so, Mr Sleep. There is no oil in Israel and we could probably get cheaper oil from our Arab patrons if we'd abandon our current policy in Israel. The reason why the US backs Israel so heavily is that our politicians want the backing of the Jewish vote, which is concentrated, influential (read: wealthy) and tends to vote as a bloc.

[Mr Sleep]

Quote:

Originally posted by HighLordDave Not so, Mr Sleep. There is no oil in Israel and we could probably get cheaper oil from our Arab patrons if we'd abandon our current policy in Israel. The reason why the US backs Israel so heavily is that our politicians want the backing of the Jewish vote, which is concentrated, influential (read: wealthy) and tends to vote as a bloc.

They do get their supply through Israel though, don't they? I don't know for certain being somewhat uneducated on the subject but I thought that Israel were key to the US getting too the oil.

[HighLordDave]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no connection between Israel and oil, either as a producer or distributor.