UN reforms? - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
April 6th, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted
But you forget one thing ASTRAL; the UN is a body of independent nations. If the UN does not intervene, it means that a majority of nations don't want the action. You can blaim the organisation, because the decision-makers are independent nations! And be honest, even in academic litterature Africa is seen as a "lost continent". Nobody outside Africa cares enough to do something structural, and that relfects in the collective action of these nations; via the UN, a collection of nations!
The UN (or at least some of them) want to intervene in Iran. The rest of the council is holding them up.

There is a post here somewhere that I had linked from an article. It states that China and Russia had a certain phrase removed from some document. The phrase stated that it is the UN's responsibility to police and monitor nuclear policies etc. I cant remember the entire thing but that is the gist of it.

Now, it is the UN Security Council's responsibility/duty/obligation to take care of this. But Russia and China seem to want to disregard this. This is not a majority reaction, this is a reaction of self interest. It is their responsibility and they (China and Russia) are shirking it.
April 7th, 2006  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
It is almost impossible to get them to agree to sort of change as those that are there are doing very nicely thank you and they would not give that up for any thing, and this goes from the very top right the way down.
I'm just comenting on what they should do, not what they will do. Even though there was a proposition at UN headquaters to abolish the Veto, but the Veto countries didnt agree if i remember it right. Still they, the countries with veto keep complaining on those countries that use it against them, which is rather idiotic
April 7th, 2006  
Ted
 
 
Quote:
Now, it is the UN Security Council's responsibility/duty/obligation to take care of this. But Russia and China seem to want to disregard this. This is not a majority reaction, this is a reaction of self interest. It is their responsibility and they (China and Russia) are shirking it.
I hear you MarineRhodes, but that is exactly why I am opposed to the veto-power if the security council. They will almost never agree on this. The US and UK think it is their responcibility to intervene, while Russia and Chine see it the other way around. If you would have a majority vote you could go around these specefic interest and get something going.
That is why I am not opposed to the UN, but to the way it is structured. We live in a new time where this remnant should be removed and turned into something new.
--
Boots
April 8th, 2006  
ASTRALdragon
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted
I hear you MarineRhodes, but that is exactly why I am opposed to the veto-power if the security council. They will almost never agree on this. The US and UK think it is their responcibility to intervene, while Russia and Chine see it the other way around. If you would have a majority vote you could go around these specefic interest and get something going.
That is why I am not opposed to the UN, but to the way it is structured. We live in a new time where this remnant should be removed and turned into something new.
Psh, of course China and Russia would oppose it; they do not have the majority. The US, Britain, and France are closer allies together than any other combo of the 5 permanent UNSC members. Russia and China only have each other so pretty much none of their measures would fly. If the UN were to reform based on the majority vote rather than the old veto system, me thinks Cold War II is going to happen with China and Russia on one side and everyone else on the other (well, not necessarily everyone, but you get the idea).
April 8th, 2006  
Ted
 
 
This is actually something interesting. Does the UN need the okay from the sec. counsil to curb their veto power? I can't believe that such a loop hole was build into the organisation. I mean politics change and you can't maintain an organization which would be so blind as to overlook this.
April 8th, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted
I hear you MarineRhodes, but that is exactly why I am opposed to the veto-power if the security council. They will almost never agree on this. The US and UK think it is their responcibility to intervene, while Russia and Chine see it the other way around. If you would have a majority vote you could go around these specefic interest and get something going.
That is why I am not opposed to the UN, but to the way it is structured. We live in a new time where this remnant should be removed and turned into something new.
Wow I was out in left field there somewhere. Majority vote vs a Veto. . . It seems that would clear up alot of B.S. and self interest for certain. The majority of the nations wish this and that while a minority want that and this. Democracy at work. Can't you feel the love?
April 9th, 2006  
boris116
 
 
I just want to remind you, guys, an interesting historical fact: In the old Polish Parliament each and every member had a Veto power....

The outcome has been predictable - they rarely could agree on anything and the country has disappeared from the map until after WWI.

In the UN, I believe, th Veto power is nesessary, because it makes the big powers to agree on something, if anything...

The majority vote will bring enormous corruption - these "independent" nations' votes will be bought and sold. Basically, right now it's what is going on already. However, the stakes are not too high, because the General Assembly's decisions are not enforcable, while they do have some political and moral weight. Just imagine, if the decision to bomb Iran would depend on th majority vote! What kind of horse trading would start?
If it could be shown on TV it will be the hit of hits in the Realityshow category
April 9th, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boris116
I just want to remind you, guys, an interesting historical fact: In the old Polish Parliament each and every member had a Veto power....

The outcome has been predictable - they rarely could agree on anything and the country has disappeared from the map until after WWI.

In the UN, I believe, th Veto power is nesessary, because it makes the big powers to agree on something, if anything...

The majority vote will bring enormous corruption - these "independent" nations' votes will be bought and sold. Basically, right now it's what is going on already. However, the stakes are not too high, because the General Assembly's decisions are not enforcable, while they do have some political and moral weight. Just imagine, if the decision to bomb Iran would depend on th majority vote! What kind of horse trading would start?
If it could be shown on TV it will be the hit of hits in the Realityshow category
How many countries will be able to buy a 2/3 majority vote? How many countries would be able to convince 2/3 of the UNSC to follow their own agenda?
April 9th, 2006  
boris116
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marinerhodes
How many countries will be able to buy a 2/3 majority vote? How many countries would be able to convince 2/3 of the UNSC to follow their own agenda?
Not many. So, it will be still a very little club of the big boys...
But a very few decisions would be ever made

Another thought - anti-Israel resolutions are very easy to get in the current UN.
What if 2/3 vote will be for Israel's elimination from the map?
I would not agree to such rules!
April 9th, 2006  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boris116
Not many. So, it will be still a very little club of the big boys...
But a very few decisions would be ever made

Another thought - anti-Israel resolutions are very easy to get in the current UN.
What if 2/3 vote will be for Israel's elimination from the map?
I would not agree to such rules!

I am not sure of the politics surrounding all of it but I imagine that if the UN was restructured to reflect today's world political arena that it would never happen.