Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Suggestions for reforming / replacing UN

United Nations

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 24 April 2003 - 08:45 PM

My suggestions for reforming the UN:

1.  Add Germany and Japan as permanent members of the Security Council -- World War II ended over half a century ago

2. Expand the number of nonpermanent members on the Security Council to 14 -- to maintain the 1:2 ratio and make bribing less effective

3. Eliminate the veto ("unanimity of great powers" clause)

4. Committee chairs should be determined by General Assembly vote rather than by rotation

Edited by Certifiably Cait, 26 August 2012 - 03:41 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#2 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 24 April 2003 - 08:48 PM

Of the suggestions mentioned I like number 4 the best, although I think it would induce an even greater level of politicing than even what we've observed before.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#3 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 24 April 2003 - 08:53 PM

And none of this will ever happen because the now-permanent members won't ever allow it.

They're all good ideas ('cept #4 as tennyson said) but they're not gonna happen.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#4 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 24 April 2003 - 09:01 PM

the'Hawk, on Apr 24 2003, 12:37 PM, said:

And none of this will ever happen because the now-permanent members won't ever allow it.
Wouldn't the changes be voted on in the General Assembly, which doesn't have vetoes?

Edited by QuantumFlux, 24 April 2003 - 09:02 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#5 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 24 April 2003 - 09:10 PM

Yeah, possibly, but the executive branch of the UN is *still* the Security Council. And no matter what happens, the Security Council has to vote on it.

So, really, you could propose anything up to and including making the planet Mars a permanent member and they'd say 'no' just because you didn't do what they wanted.

Half my problems with the UN sit on the Security Council as permanent members. The other half IS the Security Council itself.
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#6 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 24 April 2003 - 09:14 PM

the'Hawk, on Apr 24 2003, 12:54 PM, said:

Half my problems with the UN sit on the Security Council as permanent members. The other half IS the Security Council itself.
ROFL!
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#7 eryn

eryn

    So, a baby seal walks into a club...

  • Islander
  • 1,638 posts

Posted 24 April 2003 - 09:20 PM

QuantumFlux, on Apr 24 2003, 11:45 AM, said:

Wouldn't the changes be voted on in the General Assembly, which doesn't have vetoes?
The General Assembly is used to "initiate studies and make recommendations" for the purpose of "Assisting in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion". it can "initiate studies and make recommendations" for the purpose of "Assisting in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion". (Emphasis mine)

http://193.194.138.1.../menu2/2/ga.htm

Basically all the General Assembly could do is recommend something, that doesn't necessarily mean that the resolution would go through.

For further information: http://www.un.org/ga/57/about.htm

mystic

[Edited for a typo]

Edited by mystic, 24 April 2003 - 09:39 PM.

If you watch the news and don't like it, then this is your counter program to the news.
Jon Stewart

My Flickr

#8 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 24 April 2003 - 09:34 PM

^ Sheesh. I think the General Assembly got shafted.

Edited by QuantumFlux, 24 April 2003 - 09:43 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#9 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 24 April 2003 - 09:41 PM

I like most of your suggestions, though I'd also suggest adding Brazil and one of the big sub-Saharan African countries (either South Africa or Nigeria) as permanent Security Council members to add some geographic balance (and maybe eliminate Britain and France and instead give the E.U. one vote.)  

Zack
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#10 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 24 April 2003 - 09:57 PM

Are we so polerized that the UN is nothing more then a place to talk?

The USA will never back or enforce resolutions against Isreal. The Russians and French consider their economies over human rights, probably China as well. Perhaps that is what we are doing with Isreal, I don't know the facts, but it looks like none of the countries involved take the UN seriously.
Can't Touch This!!

#11 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 24 April 2003 - 10:04 PM

Well, in all honesty thanks to the Cold War it wasn't a place to be taken seriously in international diplomacy until relatively recently. Us-Soviet Union tensions gridlocked it for so long as to render a lot of the higher end work there moot.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#12 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 25 April 2003 - 01:51 AM

Anyone else have any ideas?

Surely the more vehement of the UN’s detractors have something to add.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#13 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 25 April 2003 - 01:57 AM

My questioni s this:

How should permanent votes be decided?

France isn't really relevant any more, militarily or economically. It played an adsurbly large role in the Iraq mess.

Is it military? Economic? Some vague undefined thing called 'power'?
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#14 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 25 April 2003 - 02:38 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Apr 24 2003, 05:41 PM, said:

My questioni s this:

How should permanent votes be decided?

France isn't really relevant any more, militarily or economically. It played an adsurbly large role in the Iraq mess.

Is it military? Economic? Some vague undefined thing called 'power'?
How’s this?

GNP’ = GNP – MilitarySpending

Power = A * Population / LargestPopulation + B * GNP’ / HighestGNP’ + C * MilitarySpending / HighestMilitarySpending

I propose:
A = 1
B = 1
C = 1 / 3

Pick most powerful nation on each of North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa as well as the two most powerful nations not already picked.

Britain would be considered part of Europe.
Japan would be considered part of Asia.

Edited by QuantumFlux, 25 April 2003 - 02:45 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#15 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 25 April 2003 - 03:27 AM

Quote

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.  

Quote

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



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: United Nations

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users