Zack: (and maybe eliminate Britain and France and instead give the E.U. one vote.)
Besides the fact that Eastern Europe and England would likely scream murder over this one; I think it would be a major mistake to make the EU a block in the UN. The EU is far from being a unified voice on the foreign stage and less unified in many other ways. Revent events make it pretty clear just how deep those divisions run and some of the contempt that exists. This is aside from the dirty little games that France and Germany are pulling to make the EU their playpen.
QF: Surely the more vehement of the UN’s detractors have something to add.
You mean everything short of having the NYNG evict it into the center of Atlantic and into the dustbin of history?
Seriousness in; I have to agree with Rov to a large extent. France is the anachronism compared to the other permanent members of the Security Council. I would have to say Japan or Germany is far more of a fit for what I would look for in a permanent member of the Security Council. So I would say can France in favor of one or both of those countries or expand the Security Council by adding Japan as a permanent member. Then create a second tier of permanent members including Brazil, Australia, South Korea, Germany, South Africa, and India among others. Essentially the second tier would consist of the major regional powers.
Then the next though would be to do a complete overhaul of the UN in terms of Peacekeeping. Maybe actually *try* to give the Peacekeepers ROE that would allow them do something other than being immobile witnesses when they are tied to trees. The biggest thing in my eyes is to avoid the creation of a UN military force. I would want an expansion of the WHO in addition to the humanitarian wings of the UN. Even with those changes the UN would still essentially be a cripple of its very nature.
The key thing in my eyes though has nothing to do with operating within the UN and has everything to do with the inadequacies of the UN. In one sense it would be a security blanket to pick up the ball whenever the UN manages to fumble it. I would argue for the creation of a “NATO/NAFTA” of the world that would consist of willing democracies. In order to become a member of the alliance a prospective member would have to make several basic qualifications in regards to human rights other than just the fundamental qualification of being a democracy. There would be no veto for any member. When the alliance was considering an action it would require agreement among either 2/3 or 3/4 of the members.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
-Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
- Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE