NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4024005.stm


So todays topical topic is...


Is the UN in need of reform, to both better represent newer power bases in the world as well as strenthening its own position?

Although what Chriac said was also a thinly veiled criticism of the war, should any country be allowed to act independently of international law and the international community?

Personally i believe, that if the US/UK/Allies had gone to war over Saddams human rights record rather than WMDs far more people would have supported it, and the UN would have let it through. However, if they had done so, they would now have an obligation to go into every other country, such as Sudan, Zimbabwe etc etc to replace those regiemes as well. But that is just a 'What if....' scenario.

As things stand, these are the questions:
Should there be a reform of the UN to represent the 'new world order' or should it remain as it is now?
Also, should it have greater power to take on regiemes with bad human rights records, those who act one their own and those who break international law?

EDIT: Yes i know i spelt strengthend wrong on the thread title... :p

It needs more permanent members (all members should be permanent). And it needs to take into account the people instead of the countries. It should be renamed united people. Well I know it is not going to happen, but I just wish.

I think the whole idea of US/Euro forces being the world's policeman is wrong. Peacekeeping and intervention should be done on a purely regional basis, not an "international" one.

If we could only step back and let people work out their own destiny,i think the world would be much safer.

They should get rid of vetos.

It needs more permanent members (all members should be permanent). And it needs to take into account the people instead of the countries. It should be renamed united people
I know it is not going to happen, but I just wish.
UN members are permanent. UN SEcurity Council has 5 permanent and several non-permanent members.

la bump

la bump
Alright :)
Already answered to the first question.
öh what was the second one

"should it have greater power to take on regiemes with bad human rights records, those who act one their own and those who break international law?"

oh yes...hmmm...oh my, is it possible that I don't have an answer (opinion)? woa I have to try anyway
Alright 1) they should not choose countries which have bad human right records in Security Council. What is Sudan doing there?
2) If you don't behave you loose your veto right. well this goes only for 5 countries but hey, atleast USA, China and Russia would loose them right away.
3) I don't think they should have greater power to take on any regimes but other countries could use other methods to pursue them. Like stop selling weapons to every dictator and lunatic there is.

Well I would like to see the un strengthened

We all live on one planet and have to start thinking globally … problem is the un as is, is just not set up to handle things in the current climate.

One of the things that HAS to be changed is single member vetoing
Also have to somehow reflect power … responsibility and population somehow in the voting powers of countries

I can understand the nice idea of one country one vote but some have more at stake then others (like china with its billion + people) or the USA

But it should not be over done.

Also the addition of a standing “peacekeeper” force … I know it is tough to have an independent body have military power but we have to face it … certain allies are getting tired of being called on for peacekeeping missions when in effect if only members of that mission they have very little say in how things are done.

Plus I am sure it is a royal pain trying to coordinate an effective military campaign with the mix of people and training that happens when military groups just get thrown together for independent missions

Essentially what I am saying is give them enough power for them to be able to handle most situations … no single nation veto … more representation based on things like pop/power whatever
If they can get it together individual nations should not have to step in more (ie the USA’s feeling of always having to step into things … and yes I know not invited a lot of time … maybe that’s why if the un got a little more backbone we could just sit back and let them take care of it)