NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm going to hike off to bed in a minute, but before I go, I'd like to put out this thread to start gathering opinions on how the UN could really be changed. I'm looking for constructive criticism and not a flame war. If you have nothing constructive to add, please don't add anything.

No permanent member on the security council. A larger security council. Elimination of any and all veto powers. Relocation of the UN to Switzerland or a mutually-amenable third country.

Reforms? Screw reforms, I'd say get rid of the UN completely and replace it with a slightly less formal diplomatic forum. The UN hasn't done much to impress me in the last 50 years.

Evict the United States.

I'm sure we'd be shattered.

Let us (the U.S.) out of the U.N. so that we may laugh at everyone else as they try to fill the void in UN fundings left by our absence.

Seriously though. Let us out. They don't appreciate us and what we do. So why should we bother?

Restrict membership to commitees and ability to vote in the General Assembly to nations that maintain a certain minimum level of human rights and that don't sponsor terrorism

Make it manditory for member nations to commit a certain percentage of their armed forces to deal with crises, so member nations no longer have the luxury of sitting on their hands while genocide is happening (see Rwanda)

Clearer definition of major human righs violations, esp. genocide, and removal of the red-tape and political/diplomatic jockeying involved in calling nations on these violations - probably, as stated above, by having some basic standards set for who is eligible to hold a seat on the security council - so that the UN no longer has the luxury of sitting on its collective hands while genocide is happening (see Sudan)

Get rid of the Security Council. Give every nation votes based on population, economic strength and commitment to international projects.
Create an independent UN Security Force, equipped by the member states
Outlaw all types of war, instead use the UN Forces to keep the peace (ie station division after division of UN Troops in Gaza and the West Bank etc)
Outlaw all types of Protectionism, making tariffs and quotas illegal, as well as subsidies.
Set a tax on member nations to provide funds for projects that we right now seem to be unable to complete, like eliminating world hunger, building 3rd world infrastructure, global warming, finishing that space station and flying to Mars etc etc


Extreme? Yes.
But these are only very long-term goals. And in the end: The abolishing of the concept of "Nationstates" (not the game, we want to keep that...)

Evict the United States.
Please? Do you Promise?

Other than disbanding that son-of-a-League-of Nations, I'd FIRST demand that the "Human Rights" commission only be populated by countries that actually allow their citizens to HAVE basic human rights... :headbang:

Evict the United States.

:cool: You leave first. We'd like the real estate back in Manhattan, and the $200 million+ you owe us in fines and parking tickets.

I'm going to hike off to bed in a minute, but before I go, I'd like to put out this thread to start gathering opinions on how the UN could really be changed. I'm looking for constructive criticism and not a flame war. If you have nothing constructive to add, please don't add anything.

:cool: You leave first. We'd like the real estate back in Manhattan, and the $200 million+ you owe us in fines and parking tickets.
At least Syniks had something on offer in keeping with the thread parameters. You don't.

Set a tax on member nations to provide funds for projects that we right now seem to be unable to complete, like eliminating world hunger, building 3rd world infrastructure, global warming, finishing that space station and flying to Mars etc etc


If you want to do something about world hunger, you might want to talk to some of those [Liberal!] environmentalist groups that are talking African leaders out of accepting US gene-altered corn. Remember that with existing farmland, we can't quite grow food for 6 billion people, which is part of the reason why so many are fuggin' starving. Progress must be made somewhere before a problem is going to end, and alienating our two biggest allies [technology and production] will not help anything.

* Expand the permanent security council members to include Japan, Germany, Brazil & India.
* No veto, but all resolutions must carry the permanent members by 2: 6-3 at minimum.
* Reduce the 10 "rotating" members to 6, but make it for 5 years instead of 2 so they're not lame ducks. This way each continent gets 1 country.
* Any nation(s) failing to support past UN resolutions are automatically nullified from voting for the term (year).
* All debts are to be settled at least every 5 years. Thus the US pays what it owes the UN, and the UN pays what it owes the US. :)

At least Syniks had something on offer in keeping with the thread parameters. You don't.

I disagree. The UN paying up would be a major reform for us New Yorkers. :p
Also, see my other post above this one.

-The UN should have an official song that must be sung at the beginning of every meeting. It should be to the tune of "Lean on Me" and have elaborate actions to go along with it.

-If one nation gets ticked off at another and war seems inevitable, the representative from each nation will have to square off against each other in a wrestling match. If, after the match, they are still angry at each other, they will then be allowed to declare war.

-Representatives from each nation will be required to dress in the traditional garb of their country. The representative from Holland will have to wear clogs, the rep from Italy must wear a toga, Russia's rep will have to wear one of those big fuzzy black hats and the Canadian rep must never be without a toque.

-All speaches must begin with an opening joke, just to lighten the mood.

No permanent member on the security council. A larger security council. Elimination of any and all veto powers. Relocation of the UN to Switzerland or a mutually-amenable third country.

I like many of those ideas ....except they should move the UN to an economically needy country so their presence there could bolster... even kick start an economy. Once that economy was well established.... move it to yet another economically needy country.

* Any nation(s) failing to support past UN resolutions are automatically nullified from voting for the term (year).

What?!?!!!

1. Have some standards when picking nations for various councils. Not "anyone but US, Isreal, other much hated nation", but nations that proved that they can be trusted.

2. No permanent membership. IT's just stupid.

3. No veto power.

4. Let the US help third world nations on its own without required permission or namecalling. Aircraft carriers are great things. They have their own airports, hospitals, source of fresh water, much space, etc.

5. If any of those requests aren't met, then the US should just quit the UN and not send them any more money. UNICEF? Why shouldn't I think it isn't going into funds supporting evil terrorists? Remember Oil for Food and those rapings in Africa by UN employees? Can we really trust that big bearacracy of dictator-supporting US haters?

What?!?!!!

Yep. France, Russia and China failed to carry out the UN mandates on Iraq. All of their votes would be abstentions for a full year.

All of a sudden, not only it matters that one VOTES, but backs it up, too.

Likewise, the US (which has cast the MOST vetos... more than the other 4 combined) would no longer be ABLE to veto.

Seems fair to me. :)

I like many of those ideas ....except they should move the UN to an economically needy country so their presence there could bolster... even kick start an economy. Once that economy was well established.... move it to yet another economically needy country.

You're telling me you want the world's diplomatic forum to move to places like Rwanda or Cambodia? They barely get anything done in NYC! Imagine moving them somewhere with 3rd rate infrastructure?!?

It's a nice idea, but it's just not practical.

You're telling me you want the world's diplomatic forum to move to places like Rwanda or Cambodia? They barely get anything done in NYC! Imagine moving them somewhere with 3rd rate infrastructure?!?

It's a nice idea, but it's just not practical.

Ah but that is my point exactly.They would have to build up the infrastructure before they moved... when there the UN would continue to build it up. When the UN eventually left, this is a long term view, that country would have many political and socio-economical ties... not to mention a killer infrastructure.

Sort of like... :) adopt a nation... or instead of giving a fish... teaching to fish.

In the short term it would be impractical. In the long term, it has possibilities

If you want to do something about world hunger, you might want to talk to some of those [Liberal!] environmentalist groups that are talking African leaders out of accepting US gene-altered corn...
I'm actually quite sceptical about gene-food.
I don't know about the long-term effects of eating genetically modified plants, so if I was cynical, I would almost say the US is using these people as guinea pigs.
But I'm not, so I'll just say that it would be better to give them the chance to grow their own food more effectively.

Ah but that is my point exactly.They would have to build up the infrastructure before they moved... when there the UN would continue to build it up. When the UN eventually left, this is a long term view, that country would have many political and socio-economical ties... not to mention a killer infrastructure.

Sort of like... :) adopt a nation... or instead of giving a fish... teaching to fish.

In the short term it would be impractical. In the long term, it has possibilities

I really think your heart's in the right place, but it's just not practical. I was in Warsaw in 1982... could you imagine moving the UN there? Heck, even when I went back to Bratislava in 1994 I couldn't see it moving there. The strain on the city would be enormous.

I just don't see it working out. It's a nice idea, but then so is world peace. :cool:

<SNIP>-If one nation gets ticked off at another and war seems inevitable, the representative from each nation will have to square off against each other in a wrestling match. If, after the match, they are still angry at each other, they will then be allowed to declare war.
<SNIP>
Not bad... I would just change that to: "square off against each other in a nude wrestling match..." If, after the match, they are still angry at each other, they both will then have to wrestle Prokiops the Greek. (still in the nude) :eek:

No more war. :D

Not bad... I would just change that to: "square off against each other in a nude wrestling match..." If, after the match, they are still angry at each other, they both will then have to wrestle Prokiops the Greek. (still in the nude) :eek:

No more war. :D

Wow! That's WAY better than my idea. If the UN would only listen to you, we might just achieve world peace.

Right. I've read through your posts and some of you have really nice ideas. Some ideas are... less practical (you really think world leaders would really strip naked and fight eachother? Pity we no longer have Kohl in Germany :D)
When I started reading, I was afraid this would end up in a UN or America bashing thread, but I'm glad you people refrained from it :)

Anyway, here's my proposals:

Security Council:
The SC currently does not represent the world fairly. The second and third greatest contributers Japan and Germany have no permanent seats in the SC. Africa and South America have no representatives with permanent seats on the SC. The world's second and fifth most populous nations, India and Brazil, have no seat.
My proposal to the SC would be to add six permanent seats: Germany, Japan, Brazil, India, and two African states. Add four non-permanent seats. Reform the veto power so that it takes two permanent members voting against a resolution to veto it. This way no resolution would fail simply because one nation is against it.

Peacekeeping:
The idea behind peacekeeping is nice. You send troops to an area and their function is to act as a deterrent. The problem with this is, we've had instances where an aggressor has called the bluff and the UN didn't do anything. Fact is, had they done anything, they would have been overrun, because UN peacekeepers don't have heavy equipment, such as tanks. This is a serious drawback when facing other tanks, which occured when the Dutch Peacekeepers stood aside in the Srebrenica massacre. The UN needs to be able to get Robust Peacekeeping done. The blue helmets need heavy equipment when the need arises.

These are the two biggest problems that I've come up with ideas to tackle. Remember, the UN is based on the equality of sovereign states. The SC is based on the idea that it needs to be populated with states that can get things done, when the need arises.
Any reform of the UN requires an amendment of the Charter. This is only possible if it has a 2/3rds majority in the General Assembly and all P5 nations ratify it.

Let Taiwan in and formally recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel. Oh, and move out of New York.

Let Taiwan in and formally recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel. Oh, and move out of New York.I think the only one that still recognizes Taiwan as a sovereign state is the International Olympic Commitee. Not even the US does. Israel's capital is not UN business...

I think the only one that still recognizes Taiwan as a sovereign state is the International Olympic Commitee. Not even the US does. Israel's capital is not UN business...
1) The Republic of China is recognised by 20+ countries, I think. But currently its membership in the UN is out of question.

2)Actually, it is--according to the UN resolution establishing Israel, Jerusalem is an international city under UN administration... It has never been implemented, of course.

1. Surrender vetos!
2. Either give India permanant seat - not Brazil and not South Africa or remove permanant seats and allow 2 representatives per continenet, with staggered represenation but count both Americas as a single continent.
3. Democracies have to assert themselves a LOT more, create preferntial trade and investment treaties JUST for real democratic governments (I don't include South Africa or Uganda for example)
4. Ranking system for Human rights, coruption, democratic rights and similar things
5. Only let contries sit on committes that their behaviour would support eg No Zimbabwe on Human rights committee
6. Redefine laws on warfare to allow intervention in despotic regemes, but clearly define despotism
7. Give African countries greater responsibilities and kudos if they reform their democratic systems - not their economic systems.
8. Rotating headquaters, mainly New York, but also Nairobi, Geneva, somewhere in India, probably Kolkata or Chenai, smewhere in far Est Asia say in Thailand, and somewhere in south America, say Bogota
9. Regualar standing emergancy intervention force for peace MAKING, say 150 000 men, probably by all nations supplying a percentage of their forces to regional stagging bases - that would require America changes her constitution, not a bad thing, should have been done a long time ago.
10. formation of an inter religious negoitiating forum to alow religious matters similar negotiating time as political and economic matters.

1. Surrender vetos!
...
8. Rotating headquaters, mainly New York, but also Nairobi, Geneva, somewhere in India, probably Kolkata or Chenai, smewhere in far Est Asia say in Thailand, and somewhere in south America, say Bogota

These are the only true "unfeasible" points. In order to surrender their vetoes, all veto powers need to accept it. Not gonna happen...
Rotating headquarters would just cost more money. You'd have to fly all the representatives around the world everytime there was a meeting...

No permanent member on the security council. A larger security council. Elimination of any and all veto powers. Relocation of the UN to Switzerland or a mutually-amenable third country.

I agree. I would also like to make funding for the UN based on the amount of non-renewable resources a country consumes. Based on the idea that the Earth belongs to everyone.

I agree. I would also like to make funding for the UN based on the amount of non-renewable resources a country consumes. Based on the idea that the Earth belongs to everyone.Now that's an interesting idea... but it would seriously cripple some countries that are poor and don't have nuclear energy or other renewable energy sources...

You're telling me you want the world's diplomatic forum to move to places like Rwanda or Cambodia? They barely get anything done in NYC! Imagine moving them somewhere with 3rd rate infrastructure?!?

It's a nice idea, but it's just not practical.

Well I can't talk for Cambodia, but Kigali is an emproving city, plus there are plenty of great conference cities in Africa, Addis Abbaba, where the OAU used to meant, now the AU; Nairobi, where the UN has met in the past, and where the East African Ecconomic Community have their conferences; Cairo and Shamel Al Shaik, where the League of Islamic Nations meats, and where the Isreali Palistinian peace meetings have taken place; Dar es Salam, where the ICC have their Rwandese genocide tribunal, where the Peace treaties in Rwanda, DR Congo, Burundi were negotiated; Until recently Harare, where the Commonwealth met in in the 80's; Cape Town - Great city; WindHoek, supposidly very good for these things.

These are the only true "unfeasible" points. In order to surrender their vetoes, all veto powers need to accept it. Not gonna happen...
Rotating headquarters would just cost more money. You'd have to fly all the representatives around the world everytime there was a meeting...

No, they can be taken away, the General Assembly can, and has on two occasions, superceed the Security Council. If sufficient General Assembly countries vote for the vetos to be scrapped then they can be and what is the worst that will happen? the US may pull out, no great loss.

As for rotating headquartes, what I mean is that all the cities would have some day to day function of the UN, spreading it more evenly arrond the world, and then the General Assembly and Security Council could switch between NY and another city every six months for a while, and eventually it would change to a full rotating circle.

No, they can be taken away, the General Assembly can, and has on two occasions, superceed the Security Council. If sufficient General Assembly countries vote for the vetos to be scrapped then they can be and what is the worst that will happen? the US may pull out, no great loss.

As for rotating headquartes, what I mean is that all the cities would have some day to day function of the UN, spreading it more evenly arrond the world, and then the General Assembly and Security Council could switch between NY and another city every six months for a while, and eventually it would change to a full rotating circle.I'll grant you the second point but the first is wrong. Sure enough, the GA can Unite For Peace and supersede the SC, but not when it comes to ammending the charter. That's what would be needed for removing the veto power in the SC and a Charter ammendment needs a 2/3rds majority in the GA AND a ratification by all P5 nations.

I'm actually quite sceptical about gene-food.
I don't know about the long-term effects of eating genetically modified plants, so if I was cynical, I would almost say the US is using these people as guinea pigs.
But I'm not, so I'll just say that it would be better to give them the chance to grow their own food more effectively.
Ugh. You deserve to pay more for lower quality food, and the ignorant savages that don't want it in Africa and Asia deserve to starve to death and/or suffer life long cripplingly but easily preventable maladies. People who actively try to stop genetically modified foods from reaching people who need it are failed human beings. They are truly some of the worst examples of our species to ever live.

Ugh. You deserve to pay more for lower quality food, and the ignorant savages that don't want it in Africa and Asia deserve to starve to death and/or suffer life long cripplingly but easily preventable maladies. People who actively try to stop genetically modified foods from reaching people who need it are failed human beings. They are truly some of the worst examples of our species to ever live.People who openly accept GMOs without thinking of possible consequences are failed human beings.

People who openly accept GMOs without thinking of possible consequences are failed human beings.

I agree, and more specifically Africa agrees. We see GM foods as a route towards food imperialism, having to pay companies for their seeds, not being able to keep the seeds produced by the crops because of copywrite laws, possible side affects of produce - intentional or not. No GM foods for Africa! EVER! Better to drop European/American sibsidies and give us some room to grow profitable food.

I agree, and more specifically Africa agrees. We see GM foods as a route towards food imperialism, having to pay companies for their seeds, not being able to keep the seeds produced by the crops because of copywrite laws, possible side affects of produce - intentional or not. No GM foods for Africa! EVER! Better to drop European/American sibsidies and give us some room to grow profitable food.Makes me glad I live in Europe. I have no clue what GMOs do to you if you eat them, they might even be harmless, but they tend to be hardier than normal plants. This can be quite devastating when such a strain makes it into the wild (by wind, for example) and procedes to compete for habitat with wild, less hardy plants. We can kiss our native flora goodbye in that case.

They are truly some of the worst examples of our species to ever live.
A while ago, a Russian scientist was doing an experiment with Foxes. He was breeding the Foxes to be as tame and nice as possible, so that they wouldn't bite him.
Turned out he did manage to make them nicer, but at the same time they got flappy ears and a curved tail. Why?
Because the genes that make Foxes less aggressive are somehow linked to those genes. How - we don't know yet, but they are.

When they say "We have decoded the Human Genome", then they mean they know what each gene does. They don't know when which gene is actually activated. There is a second layer that activates the genes we actually know, and about that layer we know next to nothing.

Thus, I think the risk is just too great right now.

People who openly accept GMOs without thinking of possible consequences are failed human beings.
Yeah I suppose the comfort of one's convictions are pretty cheap when you're not the one who's going to starve to death, go blind, or pick up a neurological condition for want of a more pest resistant cereal crop.

Genetic modification is what made corn, rice, and wheat what they are today. You seem to think that because it happens in a testtube, carefully, rather waiting for nature to accidently make a desirable change with a host of other changes, that it's evil magic. Your pretense at compassion is a farce.

And while some of them are industrial, patented products, some, often the most critically needed aren't.

The possible consequences of GM foods are the occasional allergic reaction for at best a few score of people in industrialized countries, versus many tens if not hundreds of millions of people living less impoverished lives. But no, let's go with clinging to ignorance, after all, we've got the internet and reliable power, it's not our ass that hangs in the balance.

A while ago, a Russian scientist was doing an experiment with Foxes. He was breeding the Foxes to be as tame and nice as possible, so that they wouldn't bite him.
Turned out he did manage to make them nicer, but at the same time they got flappy ears and a curved tail. Why?
Because the genes that make Foxes less aggressive are somehow linked to those genes. How - we don't know yet, but they are.

When they say "We have decoded the Human Genome", then they mean they know what each gene does. They don't know when which gene is actually activated. There is a second layer that activates the genes we actually know, and about that layer we know next to nothing.

Thus, I think the risk is just too great right now.
He didn't genetically engineer them. He selected them. ALL of the food you eat right now was created through the same goddamn process that Russian used. If anything, your case study is an endorsement of carefully considered genetic modification over previous methods. What an embarisment. And you'd have people starve to death, for your emotional convience. Wow.

Yeah I suppose the comfort of one's convictions are pretty cheap when you're not the one who's going to starve to death, go blind, or pick up a neurological condition for want of a more pest resistant cereal crop.

Genetic modification is what made corn, rice, and wheat what they are today. You seem to think that because it happens in a testtube, carefully, rather waiting for nature to accidently make a desirable change with a host of other changes, that it's evil magic. Your pretense at compassion is a farce.

And while some of them are industrial, patented products, some, often the most critically needed aren't.

The possible consequences of GM foods are the occasional allergic reaction for at best a few score of people in industrialized countries, versus many tens if not hundreds of millions of people living less impoverished lives. But no, let's go with clinging to ignorance, after all, we've got the internet and reliable power, it's not our ass that hangs in the balance.Sounds real nice of you. And while genetic modification is what made corn, rice, carrots, and wheat what it is today, that occurred naturally, and not in a testube which can have God-knows-what effects on the environment/human organism. People praised DDT as the answer and sprayed people with it. Some people think we should be more careful about crap like that the next time we come up with something.
And don't think the US trying to give the poor Africans their unneeded crops and seeds is because we genuinely care for them. It's shown that it's an attempt of the American agricultural lobby to make Africa dependent on American strains and basically wipe out the local seed market.

He didn't genetically engineer them. He selected them. ALL of the food you eat right now was created through the same goddamn process that Russian used. If anything, your case study is an endorsement of carefully considered genetic modification over previous methods. What an embarisment. And you'd have people starve to death, for your emotional convience. Wow.
What's with the aggression?
What I am saying is this: The Russian did not plan for the ears or the tails. They were unexpected side effects.
Now if you'd take a Fox, and introduce genes from a tortoise (so it isn't as easily hurt), do you think we could tell what happens? For that is essentially what they are doing if they change a plant so it can't be destroyed by bugs.
You end up with a plant that is resistant to pests - and can make you get Parkinson's.

Sounds real nice of you. And while genetic modification is what made corn, rice, carrots, and wheat what it is today, that occurred naturally, and not in a testube which can have God-knows-what effects on the environment/human organism. People praised DDT as the answer and sprayed people with it. Some people think we should be more careful about crap like that the next time we come up with something.
And don't think the US trying to give the poor Africans their unneeded crops and seeds is because we genuinely care for them. It's shown that it's an attempt of the American agricultural lobby to make Africa dependent on American strains and basically wipe out the local seed market.
1. It by no means occured naturally. It was a careful process of carefully considered selection by humans. And there are unintended effects of this, certain food allergies for example. And look, those are simple to deal with.

2. With respect to DDT, they were making new compounds not teaching plants how to make old ones that are new to the pants. Needless to say, chemistry has advanced quite a bit in the interviening years. So much so, that they're looking at the "all natural" pesticide approved for use on organic foods as a potential carcinogen.

3. Pest resistant cerials would allow poorer peoples to greatly reduce their pesticide use (remember they can't afford the safest, most effective, and most expensive ones) sharply reducing their very real risks by assuming your entirely imagined one.

4. Not all made in the US crops have licenses that are wholly owned by Monsanto or other asshats. See Golden Rice 2. Even in the cases where they are wholly owned frequently the licensing is such that people living in impoverished regions could live quite well selling their patented crops for a profit before they'd come into commercial conflict with those who own the intellectual property.

5. Finally, patents, unlike copyrights in America, actually are of a limited duration. So that even todays most state of the art patented GM crops will be the property of everyone well within the life span of a man. And the techniques, they keep on giving. Forever.

Leonstein,

1. The foxes are still made of the same stuff. You could eat them, just like the regular foxes, and you wouldn't grow a tail.

2. The technique he used is how the current foods you eat were made. So much for trying to prevent unintended consequences.

3. They don't create a gene from scratch to create a protine that gets folded into DDT. We can't do that yet. They take a gene they know (and people eat a lot of things) and insert it into a plant. If they F it up, the failure is usually definative. If it works, it undergoes standard testing.

It isn't magic. You're asking people to die and suffer for your superstitions (principally because you don't see them). So, what, I should commend you on your sensibilities? The very clever people who spend their lives in the pursuit of unraveling the machinery of cells so they can be the foreman, they don't do this on a whim. It's not an accident. It's grueling, long hours of dedication that will never see a thank you from the larger world because their art is to esoteric for most people to make a passing attempt at understanding. They go in knowing that most of everyone's attempts, and perhaps all of theirs are going to end in some form of dismal failure. But the promise is that if they get it right, they get to raise the benchmark for the worst poverty for hundreds of millions one notch, for all time. If people spured to action by their unreasoning fear get the hell out of the way. When anyone decides that maintaining their ignorance is more important than other people's lives and then moves to claim the morally superior high ground of compassion, I would submitt they should expect a reaction.

*This might be my last post for a while (Seafair) so if the thread is sill going when I come back, we can have more fun, if not, oh well. I might not have got this one done if I hadn't wrtten most of it two days ago.