UN reforms?




 
--
Boots
 
April 5th, 2006  
ASTRALdragon
 
 

Topic: UN reforms?


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!
April 6th, 2006  
boris116
 
 
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...
April 6th, 2006  
ASTRALdragon
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boris116
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...
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.
--
Boots
April 6th, 2006  
tomtom22
 
 
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.
April 6th, 2006  
Ted
 
 
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.
April 6th, 2006  
ASTRALdragon
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted
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.
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.
April 6th, 2006  
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!
April 6th, 2006  
PJ24
 
 
Let's start small and make all of them pay their parking violation fees. We could support a small country with what they owe.
April 6th, 2006  
AlexKall
 
Remove the veto and use a majority vote!
April 6th, 2006  
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.