NationStates Jolt Archive

"The UN is toothless. That's why it works. But that's also why it doesn't work."

What if the UN had its own military to encourage member nations to abide by its rulings and, if absolutely necessary, enforce them? The UN would remain a council of many nations as it is now, and the hypothetical military would be made of men and women 'donated' from the militaries of all the member nations. The personell would be rotated periodically and force would be kept strictly independent of any specific nation.

Is this just asking for trouble like the Star Wars Republic-to-Empire thing? Is it too close to the world government that so many people fear? Could it work if the force was kept to a relatively small number of commando-type units? Is it a good idea, a bad idea, or is it neither?

I don't really have an opinion on this either way at the moment. I'm still trying to get my head around all the implications. What do you guys think?

Funny you should post this, I was JUST thinking the same thing! I think that, while its a great idea in principal, there are way too many things tht could go wrong. And I also don't see its use ever being authorized. Oh yeah, the Star Wars thing would be scary too!

The idea is good, the practice will be very difficult.

What if? What if? What if?

First disband the UN and come up with something with less bureaucracy. It doesn't matter if they have a controlled military force (they actually do contributed by many different nations).

What if? What if? What if?

First disband the UN and come up with something with less bureaucracy. It doesn't matter if they have a controlled military force (they actually do contributed by many different nations).

Well, the only real way to deflate the bureaucracy of such an organisation would be give it some real power. People complain about the bureaucracy and how it weighs the UN down and limits what it can do, but they aren't willing to do what it takes to make the UN more useful, because they are frightened of what might happen.

At the moment, I can't really see how what America is doing at the moment, in it's self-appointed role as the world's policeman, is much different, except that it's more-or-less unilateral and not controlled by a diverse council.

It wouldn't work for some nations wouldn't want to place their men under a different nationality commander and we are forgetting the boundaries of language and culture.

Well, the only real way to deflate the bureaucracy of such an organisation would be give it some real power. People complain about the bureaucracy and how it weighs the UN down and limits what it can do, but they aren't willing to do what it takes to make the UN more useful, because they are frightened of what might happen.

At the moment, I can't really see how what America is doing at the moment, in it's self-appointed role as the world's policeman, is much different, except that it's more-or-less unilateral and not controlled by a diverse council.

No.

If it is given more power, it would blow up even more into a sprawling morass. It needs reforms, not more money thrown at it. It is like a black hole of failure. The UN must be disbanded and something efficient must be thought up of. The UN is very corrupt in nearly every single way, and has been put on the wall by a nail when it came to the oil-for-food scandal.

America is a self appointed world policeman? That goes to show how credible you are.... not at all. Too biased to look at the facts.

No.

If it is given more power, it would blow up even more into a sprawling morass. It needs reforms, not more money thrown at it. It is like a black hole of failure. The UN must be disbanded and something efficient must be thought up of. The UN is very corrupt in nearly every single way, and has been put on the wall by a nail when it came to the oil-for-food scandal.

America is a self appointed world policeman? That goes to show how credible you are.... not at all. Too biased to look at the facts.

Well, America has had a history of 'policing' the world since WW2. I'm not saying that it's entirely a bad thing. In my opinion, someone has to do it, and for now, the US is only one powerful enough to do it. The only problem with it is that, as the only nation doing it and with as much power as America has, the actions it takes are going to be primarily in its own interests, more often than not. I'm not saying America is "evil" or anything, just self-interested, which is unavoidable.

I agree with you that the UN does need reform, but disbanding it completely is just unnecessarily destructive. Yes, the UN is corrupt, but every government is corrupt. Every organisation in existence is corrupt in some way, to some extent. Perhaps you'd also like to give some more specific examples of its corruption, though?

Maybe giving such an organisation true power would only increase its corruptuon. But I tend to think that the diversity of those involved might go some way to limit the corruption, thought eliminating it entirely is impossible.

As I said, I don't really have a strong opinion either way yet.

It wouldn't work for some nations wouldn't want to place their men under a different nationality commander and we are forgetting the boundaries of language and culture.

Yes, this is a problem that would have to be solved if anything like this were to go ahead. Nations that had a problem with it would have to decide if benefits of such an arrangement outweighed any misgivings they had.

Well, America has had a history of 'policing' the world since WW2. I'm not saying that it's entirely a bad thing. In my opinion, someone has to do it, and for now, the US is only one powerful enough to do it. The only problem with it is that, as the only nation doing it and with as much power as America has, the actions it takes are going to be primarily in its own interests, more often than not. I'm not saying America is "evil" or anything, just self-interested, which is unavoidable.

Which is fine by me, since these self-interests help everyone else, economically.

I agree with you that the UN does need reform, but disbanding it completely is just unnecessarily destructive. Yes, the UN is corrupt, but every government is corrupt. Every organisation in existence is corrupt in some way, to some extent. Perhaps you'd also like to give some more specific examples of its corruption, though?

I'm sorry but the UN is more corrupt then Latin American governments I encountered when I lived in the region. I found the UN to be more corrupt then the regime of Ecuadorian President "El Loco" Abdala Bucaram. I can accept every government does have a level of corruption, but governments also have levels of transparency. Transparency means that level of corruption that may exist is minimized. In the UN it is magnified.

I feel there can be something better invented in place of the UN.

Sure, specific examples...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/UN-castigated-by-oilforfood-probe/2005/09/08/1125772607254.html?oneclick=true

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=18327

Annan was not directly responsible, but he turned a blind eye. Remember, the amount of money involved here was in nearly ten billion dollars (yes with a "B"). That is some major corruption. In fact utterly massive.

Maybe giving such an organisation true power would only increase its corruptuon. But I tend to think that the diversity of those involved might go some way to limit the corruption, thought eliminating it entirely is impossible.

As I said, I don't really have a strong opinion either way yet.

The organization needs less bureaucracy and more transparency.

As Far as I am concerned a Organization of Most or All Nations on the world is never going to work in the way it was intended to. Whether The League of Nations which utterly failed or the United Nations which in my opinion without the support of the United States is in the last stages of it's life. I would disband the UN and not even replace it with anything. That's what we need to do and my Nation is not part of the NS UN if you are wondering. And as far as giving the UN (with it's boundless corruption) an army, don't it is an extremely bad idea.

UN controlled hey?

Does that make it uncontrolled? :p

Which is fine by me, since these self-interests help everyone else, economically.


Hmmm. Economically, you might be right. Wars or "police actions" or "military interventions" as they've sometimes been called, certainly do kick start the economy of the US (there is a case to be made that America actually requires them to keep its economy from imploding, though I'm not personally up on the specifics of it), which, with America being such a massive economy, does help its trading partners. But I think that more than economic benefit has to be taken into consideration.

I have no problem with acting in self-interest, but there comes a point where "doing this is good for us, and we think it's okay for them too" becomes "doing this is good for us and if they don't like it we'll make them like it." This ends up as what is basically despotism in disguise. I don't think America is there yet, or will necessarily ever be there, but the possibility is worrying.

That's why I think that there needs to be another way, but I'm not sure if giving an organisation that is essentially above the world's nations a military of its own would be better or worse.


I'm sorry but the UN is more corrupt then Latin American governments I encountered when I lived in the region. I found the UN to be more corrupt then the regime of Ecuadorian President "El Loco" Abdala Bucaram. I can accept every government does have a level of corruption, but governments also have levels of transparency. Transparency means that level of corruption that may exist is minimized. In the UN it is magnified.

I feel there can be something better invented in place of the UN.

Sure, specific examples...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/UN-castigated-by-oilforfood-probe/2005/09/08/1125772607254.html?oneclick=true

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=18327

Annan was not directly responsible, but he turned a blind eye. Remember, the amount of money involved here was in nearly ten billion dollars (yes with a "B"). That is some major corruption. In fact utterly massive.



The organization needs less bureaucracy and more transparency.

Hmmm. Yes. Those are worrying, but I still don't think disbanding the UN is a viable solution. What would you suggest should be in its place? I'm honestly curious, because I think you have a point, though I don't completely agree with the extremity.

Maybe a metaphorical "Night of the Long Knives" is needed to weed out some of the more corrupt elements?

Hmmm. Economically, you might be right. Wars or "police actions" or "military interventions" as they've sometimes been called, certainly do kick start the economy of the US (there is a case to be made that America actually requires them to keep its economy from imploding, though I'm not personally up on the specifics of it), which, with America being such a massive economy, does help its trading partners. But I think that more than economic benefit has to be taken into consideration.

No. America's economy will do just fine without going on military adventures (as its economy is internal consumer based). There are circumstances where it is forced to use its military because of external threats. But since the US economy is based on internal consumption, you are quite off.


Hmmm. Yes. Those are worrying, but I still don't think disbanding the UN is a viable solution. What would you suggest should be in its place? I'm honestly curious, because I think you have a point, though I don't completely agree with the extremity.

Maybe a metaphorical "Night of the Long Knives" is needed to weed out some of the more corrupt elements?

Look the fact that $10 billion dollars has been mishandled, is missing or has been embezzled should be a lot more then worrying. That's $10,000,000,000. it isn't a small amount. The UN has corruption that goes right to the core. Either we completely reform it from the bottom up or make a new organization that is more efficient, having less bureaucracy in it. I also feel that an organization that lets a nation like Libya or some other country like that on its human rights council (or whatever they call it) has some serious contradictions.

No. America's economy will do just fine without going on military adventures (as its economy is internal consumer based). There are circumstances where it is forced to use its military because of external threats. But since the US economy is based on internal consumption, you are quite off.


I'm honestly not sure about that. I think the regularity with which America goes about it's military actions (there's been a fairly major one every decade or so since WW2) indicates some ulterior motive, which might be economic, or idealogical or something else. Or it might just be coincidence.

The only way we'll find out is if America doesn't engage in any major military excursions for a sizable period of time and obverse what happens.

I also think that it tends to exagerate 'external threats' some of the time. Potential threats, sure, but I can't agree with launching preemptive strikes because there might possibly be a pressing threat some time in the nebulous future. My country (Australia) is no different really, but mostly because we meekly go along with whatever the US tells us to do, which I find quite disappointing.



Look the fact that $10 billion dollars has been mishandled, is missing or has been embezzled should be a lot more then worrying. That's $10,000,000,000. it isn't a small amount. The UN has corruption that goes right to the core. Either we completely reform it from the bottom up or make a new organization that is more efficient, having less bureaucracy in it. I also feel that an organization that lets a nation like Libya or some other country like that on its human rights council (or whatever they call it) has some serious contradictions.

You make some good points here. The UN procrastinates over blatant human rights violations, which is terrible, but can it really be expected to do anything about them when it is as toothless as it is? I tend to think that nations that don't meet a certain standard in humans rights and other things should be excluded from the organisation altogether. But are there any real disadvantages to NOT being a member at this time? And if a ruling is passed that a nation is in a bad enough state to require intervention from the organisation, how do you implement that intervention? And how do you stop powerful nations from haring off on their own when they don't agree with a ruling?

And that is a lot of money to you and me, but talking in international scale, it's not that much. But I agree that is a large enough amount to warrant a proper explanation and a proper attempt to correct the error.

If the UN were to be disbanded (or as good as), how would you go about making it more transparent? How would go about giving it the real authority necessary so that powerful (and not-so-powerful, for that matter) nations couldn't simply ignore it when they felt like it? Would you give it that authority at all? And if it doesn't have any real authority, what use is it?

"The UN is toothless. That's why it works. But that's also why it doesn't work."

What if the UN had its own military to encourage member nations to abide by its rulings and, if absolutely necessary, enforce them? The UN would remain a council of many nations as it is now, and the hypothetical military would be made of men and women 'donated' from the militaries of all the member nations. The personell would be rotated periodically and force would be kept strictly independent of any specific nation.

Is this just asking for trouble like the Star Wars Republic-to-Empire thing? Is it too close to the world government that so many people fear? Could it work if the force was kept to a relatively small number of commando-type units? Is it a good idea, a bad idea, or is it neither?
Over the span of human history, political structures have always gone from less to more complex, rather like life itself: from clan to tribe, from tribe to fiefdom, from fiefdom to dutchy, from dutchy to nation, from nation to region. The next obvious step would be from region to planetary government, but the time is not yet. Most, if not all nations still need to reach consensus on what such a government should look like, how it should function, and whether or not it should have a planetary "police force."

All things in good time.

Over the span of human history, political structures have always gone from less to more complex, rather like life itself: from clan to tribe, from tribe to fiefdom, from fiefdom to dutchy, from dutchy to nation, from nation to region. The next obvious step would be from region to planetary government, but the time is not yet. Most, if not all nations still need to reach consensus on what such a government should look like, how it should function, and whether or not it should have a planetary "police force."

All things in good time.

I agree with you that we're probably a long way off from true planetary government, yes.

It shocks me that I find myself agreeing with you, Eutrusca, but you are right, here.

I'm actually one of those people that sees the nation as an outdated concept; a relic of a time past and I'm glad to see that the world is slowly moving away from it (ie. The EU).

At the same time, though, the idea of a centralised planetary government scares me. But I'm not certain it's worse than the alternative.

How I long for the UN Spacy... :D
then again, we'd have to have a Global Civil War, then the arrival of the SDF-1 before we'd start clashing w/ anti-UN forces, but...