UN reforms?

ASTRALdragon

ASTRALdragon

Active member
The post by Marinerhodes made me think about this. Btw, Chief Bones's reply to that thread made me chuckle a bit about how useless the UN is in world affairs, which I 200% agree with.

I think it's safe to assume that 9/10 of us agree that the UN is in need of some serious reform/restructuring. The current UN is a relic of the post-World War II era, which the world has moved beyond (except for China and both Koreas who are still mad that they got owned by a smaller country). What types of reforms would you suggest the UN take to insure that they are still a world body? Should there be new positions? Less positions? A new building perhaps? How about a catchy motto?

Personally, I think Japan and the rest of the G4 (I think that's what they called themselves) should be given strong consideration to be given a spot on the SC (the veto-carrying spots). If I could add more to it, I'd add Japan, Germany, Brazil, and South Africa. Actually, I'd let the African nations nominate one of their own to represent them all.

Post away guys! I want to read excellent posts from you intellects! :jump:
 
I would say that one plane with a lot of fuel could have take care of the UN:))
No, I am not talking about the 9/11-style terrorist attack - let's put the UN chiefs on board and give them one way ticket to Antarctica:))


On a serious note, I am afraid, it is almost impossible to reform the UN.
There is too much of the self-interests from it's bureacracy as well as from it's various members. Do not forget - the vast majority of the UN members are FAILED states!. Why should they be interested in reforming this body? If it will be efficient, it could put an end to these regimes...
 
boris116 said:
I would say that one plane with a lot of fuel could have take care of the UN:))
No, I am not talking about the 9/11-style terrorist attack - let's put the UN chiefs on board and give them one way ticket to Antarctica:))


On a serious note, I am afraid, it is almost impossible to reform the UN.
There is too much of the self-interests from it's bureacracy as well as from it's various members. Do not forget - the vast majority of the UN members are FAILED states!. Why should they be interested in reforming this body? If it will be efficient, it could put an end to these regimes...
Click to expand...

Heh I totally understand what you're saying but let's say theoretically, if YOU could change the UN for the better (hopefully), how would you do it? Of course I know realistically if any change were to occur, it would take like 20-50 years.
 
I have to agree with boris116's approach. In fact, I like it very much. But as a practical matter, the U.N. is about the only thing that we have to address the problems that affect the world.
 
I am under the impression that you think that the UN should be a military intervention body, ready to strike everywhere the US wants to. I agree that the veto-system could use an overhaul, but don't forget it is a body which works on consensus.
The UN does so much work in developmental aid, educational help, health care... and yes, most of this is outside the US. The train of thought that the UN is redundant because the US benefits so little is self-centered to say the least! To expand the security counsel with more veto's will make it even less capable to do things. I am all for a 2/3 majority vote, which would make hard decisions easier to make.
In short: I also think things need to change to make the UN more efficient. But on the other hand, this will not work if countries will battle each decision they don't like or refuse to sign treaties. Solve the latter and you'll greatly improve the first.
 
Ted said:
I am under the impression that you think that the UN should be a military intervention body, ready to strike everywhere the US wants to. I agree that the veto-system could use an overhaul, but don't forget it is a body which works on consensus.
The UN does so much work in developmental aid, educational help, health care... and yes, most of this is outside the US. The train of thought that the UN is redundant because the US benefits so little is self-centered to say the least! To expand the security counsel with more veto's will make it even less capable to do things. I am all for a 2/3 majority vote, which would make hard decisions easier to make.
In short: I also think things need to change to make the UN more efficient. But on the other hand, this will not work if countries will battle each decision they don't like or refuse to sign treaties. Solve the latter and you'll greatly improve the first.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think the UN should be a military type body of intervention, but it should be under their role. I'm actually all for the 2/3 majority vote idea. It seems like the current UN won't deal with certain world matters if it doesn't concern certain countries of interest. Millions of people die every year because of civil unrest in many African nations but most of the UN don't seem to care. Iraq is a fledgling democracy that is underway but a vast majority of the UN won't intervene because they US went against their decision. How about what's done is done, now let's help those people? For once Israel is willing to sit down and give away some land to a Palestinian state but the UN doesn't seem to be doing much. If anything, I think the roadmap to peace should have come from the UN, and not the US. The UN sure talks alot and condemns nations left and right for going unilateral, but they don't seem to do much.
 
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!
 
Let's start small and make all of them pay their parking violation fees. We could support a small country with what they owe.
 
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.
 
Ted said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
LeEnfield said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :read:
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ted said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
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.
 
Ted said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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:)
 
boris116 said:
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:)
Click to expand...

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?
 
Marinerhodes said:
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?
Click to expand...

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!
 
boris116 said:
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!
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top