NationStates Jolt Archive

Time for a new UN Thread! (Choose your smiley: :) or :rolleyes: )

Everyone on the planet probably agrees that the UN should be reformed. But how that is supposed to look like is less obvious.

What do you think?
I'd say we have a 50:50 shot that the first post will contain something along the line of destroying it...so I ask you now to make a proper case for it, if you don't mind.

Personally I'd say that we should do this:
a) Get rid of the Security Council (hereafter "SC"). The veto-rule is bullshit, and misused on about every occasion. I'd much rather make the UN truly democratic, where every country gets a certain amount of votes based on things like Population and willingness to chip in when the UN takes action. Then you simply let a majority rule.

b) Every nation on the planet should set up a regiment or two of peacekeeping and emergency response forces (ie field hospitals etc) which are highly mobile and will then be put directly under UN Command. The individual nation is no longer responsible for these forces, which are still stationed in their home country but essentially foreign forces.
That way the UN can directly and quickly respond to any situation that may come up.

Time for a new UN Thread! (Choose your smiley: :) or :rolleyes: )

Everyone on the planet probably agrees that the UN should be reformed. But how that is supposed to look like is less obvious.

What do you think?
I'd say we have a 50:50 shot that the first post will contain something along the line of destroying it...so I ask you now to make a proper case for it, if you don't mind.

Personally I'd say that we should do this:
a) Get rid of the Security Council (hereafter "SC"). The veto-rule is bullshit, and misused on about every occasion. I'd much rather make the UN truly democratic, where every country gets a certain amount of votes based on things like Population and willingness to chip in when the UN takes action. Then you simply let a majority rule.

b) Every nation on the planet should set up a regiment or two of peacekeeping and emergency response forces (ie field hospitals etc) which are highly mobile and will then be put directly under UN Command. The individual nation is no longer responsible for these forces, which are still stationed in their home country but essentially foreign forces.
That way the UN can directly and quickly respond to any situation that may come up.

personaly i think that we should get rid of the UN......they dont do anything but cause problums, the world servived more than 6 thousand years without a UN type group why do we need one now?

Reforming the UN is like reforming a cancer. The best way to reform it is to remove it.

<snipt>

Personally I'd say that we should do this:
a) Get rid of the Security Council (hereafter "SC"). The veto-rule is bullshit, and misused on about every occasion. I'd much rather make the UN truly democratic, where every country gets a certain amount of votes based on things like Population and willingness to chip in when the UN takes action. Then you simply let a majority rule.

b) Every nation on the planet should set up a regiment or two of peacekeeping and emergency response forces (ie field hospitals etc) which are highly mobile and will then be put directly under UN Command. The individual nation is no longer responsible for these forces, which are still stationed in their home country but essentially foreign forces.
That way the UN can directly and quickly respond to any situation that may come up.
a) So the US wouldn't be able to veto decisions that are voted on by Sudan, Libya, N. Korea, and all those other wonderfull, peacefull and civilized nations out there? Screw that.

b) I don't know. This may be a good idea so that the UN isn't forced to rely on Jordanian child molestors (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12607859%5E2702,00.html) and other savages.

...the world servived more than 6 thousand years without a UN type group why do we need one now?
Because for more than 6000 years we
a) didn't have nukes and a little war can blow out to something decidedly nasty
b) we lived in our only little world. Now the world is a smaller place, and everyone has contact with everyone. And since that is the case these days, what happens in one place affects the entire planet.

So the US wouldn't be able to veto decisions that are voted on by Sudan, Libya, N. Korea, and all those other wonderfull, peacefull and civilized nations out there? Screw that.
And you think the majority of the world would side with those countries?
Do you actually believe the US is the only country in the world that knows who's a good guy and who isn't?

Time for a new UN Thread! (Choose your smiley: :) or :rolleyes: )

Everyone on the planet probably agrees that the UN should be reformed. But how that is supposed to look like is less obvious.

What do you think?
I'd say we have a 50:50 shot that the first post will contain something along the line of destroying it...so I ask you now to make a proper case for it, if you don't mind.

Personally I'd say that we should do this:
a) Get rid of the Security Council (hereafter "SC"). The veto-rule is bullshit, and misused on about every occasion. I'd much rather make the UN truly democratic, where every country gets a certain amount of votes based on things like Population and willingness to chip in when the UN takes action. Then you simply let a majority rule.

b) Every nation on the planet should set up a regiment or two of peacekeeping and emergency response forces (ie field hospitals etc) which are highly mobile and will then be put directly under UN Command. The individual nation is no longer responsible for these forces, which are still stationed in their home country but essentially foreign forces.
That way the UN can directly and quickly respond to any situation that may come up.

There has to be some way for it to become self-supporting, some kind of tax perhaps.

<snipedified>

And you think the majority of the world would side with those countries?
Do you actually believe the US is the only country in the world that knows who's a good guy and who isn't?
Considering how many posters on this forum have said outright that Iran has every right to a nuclear program I'm not so sure that the majority vote in the UN can be trusted to do the right thing.

a) Get rid of the Security Council (hereafter "SC"). The veto-rule is bullshit, and misused on about every occasion. I'd much rather make the UN truly democratic, where every country gets a certain amount of votes based on things like Population and willingness to chip in when the UN takes action. Then you simply let a majority rule.
And majority rule will never be abused? :rolleyes:
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, in which the 51% may take away the rights of the other 49%"
-Thomas Jefferson

b) Every nation on the planet should set up a regiment or two of peacekeeping and emergency response forces (ie field hospitals etc) which are highly mobile and will then be put directly under UN Command. The individual nation is no longer responsible for these forces, which are still stationed in their home country but essentially foreign forces.
That way the UN can directly and quickly respond to any situation that may come up
Sorry, but as nice as this idea may sound, I don't like to subjugate even the fewest of country's own troops under the control of an international power.

Considering how many posters on this forum have said outright that Iran has every right to a nuclear program I'm not so sure that the majority vote in the UN can be trusted to do the right thing.
But you do believe in Democracy, right?
And in a democracy, when the majority decides something, you really have no right to stop that decision from being implemented. And that's exactly what the UNSC-Veto Rule does.

And besides, as long as Iran doesn't build nukes, it should be free to create as much energy as it wants with nuclear power. I think we all agree on that - but it might be better to leave it there, lest I hijack my own thread.

And majority rule will never be abused? :rolleyes:
Considering how difficult it is to get the majority of countries on your side on some issue, I would think that this particular case would see less abuse than the Veto does at the moment.

EDIT: Afterall this is not like a country, it is merely a meeting of 200+ representatives. Every parliament on the planet works in a similar manner (even though in many countries Heads of State have formal veto-powers, but they usually aren't used - unlike in the UN).

But you do believe in Democracy, right?
And in a democracy, when the majority decides something, you really have no right to stop that decision from being implemented. And that's exactly what the UNSC-Veto Rule does.

Democracy=Tyranny by majority

And since the majority of countries are Third World tin-pot dictatorships, should we really go with the decisions of the majority?

But you do believe in Democracy, right?
And in a democracy, when the majority decides something, you really have no right to stop that decision from being implemented.
See the quote by Jefferson in my post above.

"... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

James Madison (Essay #10 of the Federalist Papers)

Democracy=Tyranny by majority
As opposed to the tyranny of the minority? I'm sure Jefferson would've been really proud had he seen how the UN works today.
Every attempt to even make the SC bigger are just being fought of for no reason other than power play.

And since the majority of countries are Third World tin-pot dictatorships, should we really go with the decisions of the majority?
Yes. And there's not as many of those around as there used to.

I think that we should reform the UN into a jet plane, because politics needs to resemble Transformers more.

Alternately, I would suggest scrapping the security counsil and giving every member 1 vote per $100,000 they paid to the organization that year and another vote per 10 million people. And before anyone whines that such a plan would give China or the US or whoever else you want to whine about too much power, consider that the countries that are footing this bill should probably be deciding where their cash goes.

As opposed to the tyranny of the minority?
There's only one good thing about a tyranny of the minority - since it's smaller than a majority there are fewer people to overthrow and more people to stand against them.

As opposed to the tyranny of the minority? I'm sure Jefferson would've been really proud had he seen how the UN works today.
Every attempt to even make the SC bigger are just being fought of for no reason other than power play.

Jefferson also opposed entangling alliances, and supported a non-aligned foreign policy.

There's only one good thing about a tyranny of the minority - since it's smaller than a majority there are fewer people to overthrow and more people to stand against them.
Can't you just once step out of the dogmatism when it comes to these issues?
I'm not writing an essay about unbridled democracy - I'm talking reforming a forum on which the nations of the planet discuss issues and make decisions, on which they act together.
The UNSC was established because the victors of WWII needed an instrument to legitimise their powerful positions, and as a tool not to kill each other in the process. That's all.
Obviously it's no longer necessary for that reason, and implementing a system in which the forum comes to conclusions based on voting on issues (as is already done in many decisions when the SC doesn't get involved) is one alternative.

Jefferson also opposed entangling alliances, and supported a non-aligned foreign policy.
Well, you gave up that path a long time ago - and before you start moaning to me about it, I'm sure there are people in the world who can do more about it than me.

Just get rid of the UN, NATO, NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, and all other entangling alliances, and let nations keep themselves to themselves. If certain countries want to play world policeman, go for it, but keep us out of it.

a) Get rid of the Security Council (hereafter "SC"). The veto-rule is bullshit, and misused on about every occasion. I'd much rather make the UN truly democratic, where every country gets a certain amount of votes based on things like Population and willingness to chip in when the UN takes action. Then you simply let a majority rule.
That's a good idea, but I suppose the SC permanent five wouldn't be willing to give away their influence. I'm sure France and Britain wouldn't like losing their influence to more populous countries like the Philippines.

b) Every nation on the planet should set up a regiment or two of peacekeeping and emergency response forces (ie field hospitals etc) which are highly mobile and will then be put directly under UN Command. The individual nation is no longer responsible for these forces, which are still stationed in their home country but essentially foreign forces.
That way the UN can directly and quickly respond to any situation that may come up.
I agree, that should be really put into practice since those forces would act as a deterrant for a lot of awful things.

Just get rid of the UN, NATO, NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, and all other entangling alliances, and let nations keep themselves to themselves. If certain countries want to play world policeman, go for it, but keep us out of it.
:rolleyes: You call it 'play world policemen', I call it peace-keeping.

Hmmm. They don't want more permanent members in SC (fair enough). How about giving UN GA vote a certain weight in SC..? The General Assembly is supposed to be THE debate forum afterall... it seems the real forum in the UN does not get its voice through...

:rolleyes: You call it 'play world policemen', I call it peace-keeping.

Well, enjoy. But keep us out of it. It's none of our damn business. We have better things to do than meddle.

Considering how many posters on this forum have said outright that Iran has every right to a nuclear program I'm not so sure that the majority vote in the UN can be trusted to do the right thing.
I'm pretty sure that the opinions of people in an internet forum have nothing to do with the opinions of the world's political elite.

I don't think there is any real need for reforming. Though it has problems on individual levels, it does well as a general... thing: Its prevented any large wars, and helped with alot of smaller wars, settled a number of international disputes much more peacefully than one might expect in the 19th century, and it does its fair share of humanitarian work. Pretty good for its low funding and low popularity.

Time for a new UN Thread! (Choose your smiley: :) or :rolleyes: )

Everyone on the planet probably agrees that the UN should be reformed. But how that is supposed to look like is less obvious.

What do you think?
I'd say we have a 50:50 shot that the first post will contain something along the line of destroying it...so I ask you now to make a proper case for it, if you don't mind.

Personally I'd say that we should do this:
a) Get rid of the Security Council (hereafter "SC"). The veto-rule is bullshit, and misused on about every occasion. I'd much rather make the UN truly democratic, where every country gets a certain amount of votes based on things like Population and willingness to chip in when the UN takes action. Then you simply let a majority rule.

b) Every nation on the planet should set up a regiment or two of peacekeeping and emergency response forces (ie field hospitals etc) which are highly mobile and will then be put directly under UN Command. The individual nation is no longer responsible for these forces, which are still stationed in their home country but essentially foreign forces.
That way the UN can directly and quickly respond to any situation that may come up.

I have a slight alteration to that.

Step one: Explode the U.N. building.

Step two: Bulldoze over the rubble to build a Walmart or Sams Club.

Step three: Declare the United Nations gone for good and let the rest of the world get on with their damn lives already.

I have a slight alteration to that.

Step one: Explode the U.N. building.

Step two: Bulldoze over the rubble to build a Walmart or Sams Club.

Step three: Declare the United Nations gone for good and let the rest of the world get on with their damn lives already.

Amen to that!

Pretty good for its low funding and low popularity.
But it's also failed dismally in a number of areas, namely the African Genocides, the Kosovo (I didn't feel there was a need to let NATO do the dirty work) and of course the way the Iraq War turned out.
That's the kind of situation that we'll probably see more of, and personally I'd like to think that the UN would be ready to deal with it.

Democracy=Tyranny by majority
I strongly disagree with that. Usually a democracy has a little thing called a constitution, and what it does among other things is preventing tyranny by majority, so you have no point there.

I strongly disagree with that. Usually a democracy has a little thing called a constitution, and what it does among other things is preventing tyranny by majority, so you have no point there.

Democracy=Rule by men
Republic=Rule by law

Democracy=Rule by men
Republic=Rule by law

I think you meant,

Democracy = Mob rule.
Republic = Rule by a bunch of crooks and theives.

Democracy=Rule by men
Republic=Rule by law
Theocracy=Rule by old guys in funny hats.

I think you meant,

Democracy = Mob rule.
Republic = Rule by a bunch of crooks and theives.

Democracy, you're right. Republic, it depends on whether ethical men implement the laws, or if crooks and thieves implement them.

Democracy=Rule by men
Republic=Rule by law
There are laws (namely the various treaties as well as the UN Charter) that govern UN decision making to an extent. Stricter rules would have to be set up when the Security Council is abolished.

Democracy=Rule by men
Republic=Rule by law
How inaccurate. Rule of Law is a basic tenet of modern democracies.

Democracy, you're right. Republic, it depends on whether ethical men implement the laws, or if crooks and thieves implement them.

Well, I think we all know what kind of people become politicians. ;)

How inaccurate. Rule of Law is a basic tenet of modern democracies.

Read the quotes posted by Super-power and I.

But it's also failed dismally in a number of areas, namely the African Genocides, the Kosovo (I didn't feel there was a need to let NATO do the dirty work) and of course the way the Iraq War turned out.
That's the kind of situation that we'll probably see more of, and personally I'd like to think that the UN would be ready to deal with it.

As for Africa and kosovo, I wouldn't say it failed, it just did nothing(well, kosovo is complicated). It did better than if there had been no UN, and I don't think the UN should be the end all of everything anyways... I havn't seen the major world powers doing much about these genocides either.

As for the Iraq war, lets see... We shouldn't have gone in in the first place, and its turning out to be a money vacuum leading to civil war, so I don't see how the UN failed.

I havn't seen the major world powers doing much about these genocides either.

It's not our job to police the world.

It's not our job to police the world.

If by our you mean the United States I would agree with you. However, I don't think its any nations job to interfere in the affairs of other sovereign countries.

If by our you mean the United States I would agree with you. However, I don't think its any nations job to interfere in the affairs of other sovereign countries.

Agreed.

It's not our job to police the world.

It shouldn't be the UN's, either. The UN should be a forum for nations to solve problems. It is the sum of its inputs.

Read the quotes posted by Super-power and I.
I don't care about your quotes. Rule of Law is basic to all democracies, and that's a fact, live with it. You don't know what democracy is, and you're totally deluded by thinking that your dumb quotes are more valuable than reality. Democracy has rule of law, and no, it's not a goddamn tyranny by majority!!!

Agreed.

Altough the point is moot since the U.N. holds no real power.

I don't care about your quotes. Rule of Law is basic to all democracies, and that's a fact, live with it. You don't know what democracy is, and you're totally deluded by thinking that your dumb quotes are more valuable than reality. Democracy has rule of law, and no, it's not a goddamn tyranny by majority!!!

You're overlooking something: the U.S., U.K., Portugal, etc. are not democracies. They are republics.

You're overlooking something: the U.S., U.K., Portugal, etc. are not democracies. They are republics.
No, no. The Constitution of the Portuguese Republic is very explicit about Democracy

http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/po00000_.html

Check out the first two articles of the fundamental principles (that is in the beginning). A country can be a Democracy and a Republic at the same time in case you just didn't know.


EDIT: The UK, a republic? Oh please :rolleyes:

No, no. The Constitution of the Portuguese Republic is very explicit about Democracy

http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/po00000_.html

Check out the first two articles of the fundamental principles (that is in the beginning). A country can be a Democracy and a Republic at the same time in case you just didn't know.

The two words are used interchangeably today, but they are not the same thing. A U.S. Army training manual (No. 2000-25) published on October 28, 1928, described democracy as follows:

"A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of 'direct' expression.

Results in mobocracy.

Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They 'made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.' "

EDIT: The UK, a republic? Oh please :rolleyes:

Lol, missed that. In case you haven't noticed, my mind isn't working 100% today. ;)

The two words are used interchangeably today, but they are not the same thing. A U.S. Army training manual (No. 2000-25) published on October 28, 1928, described democracy as follows:

"A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of 'direct' expression.

Results in mobocracy.

Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They 'made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.' "
I have to say that is terribly biased anti-democratic propaganda. Democracy doesn't deny property and it doesn't result in mobocracy, anarchy or whatever.

I have to say that is terribly biased anti-democratic propaganda. Democracy doesn't deny property and it doesn't result in mobocracy, anarchy or whatever.

Direct democracy does.

Direct democracy does.
Representative democracy doesn't ;)

EDIT: Speaking of representative democracy, and returning to the thread, why exacly do you think that democracy is bad in the UN context?

Representative democracy doesn't ;)

True. ;)

What does that have to do with the UN?

It's fairly obvious that there are rules, laws etc along which the members of the UN should abide, and that therefore it's not a mob rule.
The question is: How would you organise a group of 200 people without excluding anyone from the decision-making process?

What does that have to do with the UN?

It's fairly obvious that there are rules, laws etc along which the members of the UN should abide, and that therefore it's not a mob rule.
The question is: How would you organise a group of 200 people without excluding anyone from the decision-making process?
You don't. The larger the group, the more people getting screwed.

You don't. The larger the group, the more people getting screwed.
I'm afraid there is no practical way of reducing the number of people in this case though, because the decisions made in this forum affect everyone, and everyone needs to have a say.
The USSR tried not caring once...can you remember?

I'm afraid there is no practical way of reducing the number of people in this case though, because the decisions made in this forum affect everyone, and everyone needs to have a say.
The USSR tried not caring once...can you remember?
Just saying, you’ll never find a way to make everyone happy. You have to decide what you care about more, making the majority of people happy, or making yourself happy. Since the majority of people in the world would screw my country if they had the chance, it is only logical that I be in favor of abolishing the UN altogether or simply keeping it the ineffective organization that it is now.

I will say this. If it is to continue existing, some sort of private multi-national entity needs to get in there and do something about all the corruption, lackeyism and various illegal activities.

1. New secretary general.
2. New ambassadors for all Security Council nations.
3. No more one-veto-defeats-all, even for the U.S.

Step 1 gets rid of the corruption. Step two gets rid of the squabbling already established by the most prominent nations' ambassadors. Step 3 makes the nations in charge on an equal scale instead of one nation defeating something just for its personal gain.

What is the basis for making North Korea equal in decision making to Sweden?

This dilemma is the base of all the UN's problems, it is why they will do nothing about anything, because the nations which should be sanctions are in charge of deciding who gets sanctioned. A Human Rights Commission whose members include Cuba, and Zimbabwe?!

As for your point 3, the General Assembly is little more than a collection of Third-World anti-semites, dictators, and rent-seekers. The Security Council Veto places a check on their corruption, and idiocy.

The best way to reform the UN is to abolish it, demolish the building, and sell the site to a property developer.

What is the basis for making North Korea equal in decision making to Sweden?

I'll spot you that question and raise you a "what is the basis for keeping a preferential vote system that has been abused before by a ruling elite in a supposedly neutral organization?"


This dilemma is the base of all the UN's problems, it is why they will do nothing about anything, because the nations which should be sanctions are in charge of deciding who gets sanctioned. A Human Rights Commission whose members include Cuba, and Zimbabwe?!

A Human Rights Commission which includes everybody else. That means if nobody else likes Zimbabwe, they can get voted against. It's not like Zimbabwe would get a veto vote.


As for your point 3, the General Assembly is little more than a collection of Third-World anti-semites, dictators, and rent-seekers. The Security Council Veto places a check on their corruption, and idiocy.

Veto also gives tremendous power for the elite to flagrantly do whatever they want and veto any action brought against them. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I'll spot you that question and raise you a "what is the basis for keeping a preferential vote system that has been abused before by a ruling elite in a supposedly neutral organization?"

You're probably used to dealing with idiots who play games. Answer my question, why should North Korea, or Syria be treated the same as Sweden, or Denmark?

No debate on the UN can be conclusive before this question is resolved.

A Human Rights Commission which includes everybody else. That means if nobody else likes Zimbabwe, they can get voted against. It's not like Zimbabwe would get a veto vote.

The HRC is elected by the General Assembly, clearly, a large proportion of "everyone else" doesn't mind Cuba, and Saudi Arabia being on the HRC.

Veto also gives tremendous power for the elite to flagrantly do whatever they want and veto any action brought against them. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

No, it does't give them unlimited power. The UN Charter checks that, though the problems with the veto system add strength to the argument that any reform to the UN, with the exception of its abolition, will not solve any problems.

I agree with the concept of scrapping the Security Council. However, I think that we should go further than that. I believe the UN's goal should be to promote and spread democracy throughout the world, so only nations which have the set of conditions that democracy is should be allowed in.

You're probably used to dealing with idiots who play games. Answer my question, why should North Korea, or Syria be treated the same as Sweden, or Denmark?

You mean as in their right to speak up in the UN and have a say regarding a decision that can affect them? You ask why should they, I ask, why shouldn't they? Autocratic behavior? That cannot really be pushed through since the votes of the other nations must be counted in. A single yes vote will not result in a conclusive change if everyone else votes no.

What damage can be done I ask you. Vote buying? That is a lot of nations to buy off, and with resources that might not be there to actually do the buying. Yes, you can claim that the US could do that, it is sufficiently rich. But at the same time, it would very likely drain its treasury in a futile effort to affect a majority.

Intimidation by force? Unless you are a global power, you will not be able to intimidate enough votes your way. The ones with the means to do so are already sitting in the security council anyways. And besides, any intimidation factor like that would most likely have severe repurcussions.

So it boils down to the same question. Why not?


The HRC is elected by the General Assembly, clearly, a large proportion of "everyone else" doesn't mind Cuba, and Saudi Arabia being on the HRC.


Everyone else meaning people on this forum or actually the ruling heads of nations? If the latter, source please.


No, it does't give them unlimited power. The UN Charter checks that, though the problems with the veto system add strength to the argument that any reform to the UN, with the exception of its abolition, will not solve any problems.

True, the power of veto does not allow a nation to push through a resolution. However, it gives the holder the ability to sink any resolution that it deems unsuitable to its current objectives.

For example, if the US/China/Russia/Britain started up a pogrom that jailed/executed a specific demographic of its population and a resolution was brought against any of these nations, it would quite easily be able to sink them with a veto.

I believe the UN's goal should be to promote and spread democracy throughout the world, so only nations which have the set of conditions that democracy is should be allowed in.

The problem with this condition is the fact that WHO sets the factors to look for in a democracy. For example, if you had someone like Pat Robertson, you would probably have a system of conditions that probably include something like "US god fearing allies only"

Or even worst. You could have Ann Coulter. Canada would probably be classified as a terrorist regime then.

personaly i think that we should get rid of the UN......they dont do anything but cause problums, the world servived more than 6 thousand years without a UN type group why do we need one now?

Because in the past there wasn't the transportation or telecommunication technology to make international affairs possible, far less the vital role they play in the 21st Century globalised economy?

There's only one good thing about a tyranny of the minority - since it's smaller than a majority there are fewer people to overthrow and more people to stand against them.

That has to be quote of the year.

I don't think there is any real need for reforming. Though it has problems on individual levels, it does well as a general... thing: Its prevented any large wars, and helped with alot of smaller wars, settled a number of international disputes much more peacefully than one might expect in the 19th century, and it does its fair share of humanitarian work. Pretty good for its low funding and low popularity.

As much as I support the UN, I don't think that you can credit it for preventing large wars. The only major war that was likely to happen in the lifetime of the UN was between the USSR and the US, and the UN didn't and couldn't do anything about that because both of them were SC members with a veto over any action that could be taken against either of them.

What the UN has achieved has been the liberation of many countries from colonial rule, the introduction of "Human Rights" as a world standard, important aid, health and education programs around the world and the creation of a regular forum on which world leaders can meet.

You're overlooking something: the U.S., U.K., Portugal, etc. are not democracies. They are republics.


The UK, a republic? Oh please

:) Yes that's right, a special kind of Monarchist Republic :D

You're probably used to dealing with idiots who play games. Answer my question, why should North Korea, or Syria be treated the same as Sweden, or Denmark?


The point of the UN is that it is neutral. It is blind to ideology, and the doctrine of sovereign equality means that it has to be blind to the internal structure of the countries. If the UN was not seen to be neutral in this way, states would see it as partisan and would not be willing to use it as a forum for finding commonality. It's neutrality means that when there is a consensus over certain issues, like apartheid in South Africa, the political pressure from it can be highly influential, which would not be the case if it was seen as working purely to the tune of the US.

The Veto system is a relic of the days when there were fewer countries, France and the UK were colonial powers and the US and USSR were the only powers that really mattered, since little could be done without their influence. And China was pretty big and isolationist and had nukes. The retention of the veto system means that the UN does indeed appear to be the puppet of the US, as can be seen by much of the recent anti-UN feeling in the middle east.

If you want to worry about the internal structure and ideology of the states, then you are really talking about something like the EU which requires that all its states meet requirements on democracy and corruption and that they employ specific economic and social laws.

The problem with this condition is the fact that WHO sets the factors to look for in a democracy. For example, if you had someone like Pat Robertson, you would probably have a system of conditions that probably include something like "US god fearing allies only"

Or even worst. You could have Ann Coulter. Canada would probably be classified as a terrorist regime then.On one hand this is true, but on the other hand what a democracy is is quite clearly described in an objective manner. It would be rather silly to allow a subjective idea of it.

You mean as in their right to speak up in the UN and have a say regarding a decision that can affect them? You ask why should they, I ask, why shouldn't they? Autocratic behavior? That cannot really be pushed through since the votes of the other nations must be counted in. A single yes vote will not result in a conclusive change if everyone else votes no.

You really don't understand. Denmark and Sweden are thoroughly harmless to their neighbours, they don't repress their people, they don't fund terrorism. They're generally recognised as good international citizens.

North Korea and Syria are exactly the opposite, yet on the floor of the UN, they are treated exactly the same. They have the same voteing power.

So it boils down to the same question. Why not?

Because their different actions justify North Korea and Syria being treated worse than Sweden or Denmark.

Everyone else meaning people on this forum or actually the ruling heads of nations? If the latter, source please.

Are you implying there's some sort of difference? The actual people sent to the UN are simply mouthpieces for the government that sent them.

Yes that's right, a special kind of Monarchist Republic

It depends on the definition of "republic" in operation.

If it is the superficial playman's definition (not a monarchy), then Britain is not a republic. If the definition is that used by intelligent adults, knowledgable on the subject of different political systems (i.e. a system of government in which power rests in the hands of elected officials who have limited powers), then it is a republic.

If it is the superficial playman's definition (not a monarchy), then Britain is not a republic. If the definition is that used by intelligent adults, knowledgable on the subject of different political systems (i.e. a system of government in which power rests in the hands of elected officials who have limited powers), then it is a republic.

Nonsense. It is a constitutional monarchy. And with the exception of Cromwell's time, it always has been.
In order to be a republic, we would have to have overthrown our monarchy (which sadly we haven't done). However, with typical British compromise, we have an unelected and practically powerless head of state, which actually seems to work pretty well. The houses debate and pass the laws, then Betty rubber stamops them. Pretty close to an ideal democracy if you ask me.....

Because their different actions justify North Korea and Syria being treated worse than Sweden or Denmark.
Just today Syria is getting ganged up on by the rest of the world. Don't you think that maybe a system where Russia and China can't protect it from sanctions, there may even be more serious consequences for wrong actions?

Usually these problems are local. The surrounding nations have a stake in it, and so they take one side or another.
But most of the world isn't necessarily directly involved, and may thus be able to make a better, neutral decision. I don't see the Chad bailing Syria out - especially since Syria is already too poor to bribe anyone.
I could see however China or Russia with Syria, or the US with Israel or Egypt.

You really don't understand. Denmark and Sweden are thoroughly harmless to their neighbours, they don't repress their people, they don't fund terrorism. They're generally recognised as good international citizens.

Sorry, being a bad citizen doesn't really mean you lose the right to vote in most nations. You could be a wife beater, a child abuser, and unless you actually go to jail (treat as ejected from the UN), you keep your right to vote.


North Korea and Syria are exactly the opposite, yet on the floor of the UN, they are treated exactly the same. They have the same voteing power.


The UN is meant to be a forum for neutrality and discussion. It would be impossible for that to happen if it became a "good behavior" club only. If that were the case, the US would be kicked out right alongside Korea and China. And if you only form a forum where only those who behave in a specific manner are allowed in, then it might as well not be the UN, but NATO or something like that.


Because their different actions justify North Korea and Syria being treated worse than Sweden or Denmark.

Then let it happen in the vote. At the moment, what happens to North Korea and Syria in the world body is determined mostly by the big 5, in which the listed countries have to talk too. If you took away veto and made it a majority vote, these nations would have to be nicer to a whole lot more people, their own citizens included if they share a commonality with their neighbors.


Are you implying there's some sort of difference? The actual people sent to the UN are simply mouthpieces for the government that sent them.

I implied a difference in a bunch of anonymous posters viewpoints on NS to that of the government of the country of their residence. So, do you have a source backing your statement that a large proportion of "everyone else" doesn't mind Cuba, and Saudi Arabia being on the HRC. in regards to nation states?

You're probably used to dealing with idiots who play games. Answer my question, why should North Korea, or Syria be treated the same as Sweden, or Denmark?
I agree with the concept of scrapping the Security Council. However, I think that we should go further than that. I believe the UN's goal should be to promote and spread democracy throughout the world, so only nations which have the set of conditions that democracy is should be allowed in.
Even the criminals still in prison have the right to vote. However, they can't get ellected until their sentence is over. A sistem in which all the countries were allowed to vote who's in the security council, but only the democratic countries would be allowed to be elected there, seems quite fair. Of course, China would veto any such proposal...;)

I also agree the veto should dissappear and that the UN should have an effective 'army'. I'll go even further and say it should even have its own funds, otherwise it will never be trully independent. Something like a small membership fee could solve this problem.

Nonsense. It is a constitutional monarchy. And with the exception of Cromwell's time, it always has been.
In order to be a republic, we would have to have overthrown our monarchy (which sadly we haven't done). However, with typical British compromise, we have an unelected and practically powerless head of state, which actually seems to work pretty well. The houses debate and pass the laws, then Betty rubber stamops them. Pretty close to an ideal democracy if you ask me.....

Playman's Guide to Political Science?

By any meaningful definition, Britain is a republic. True, it has the trappings of a monarchy, but so does the United States, to an extent.

I implied a difference in a bunch of anonymous posters viewpoints on NS to that of the government of the country of their residence. So, do you have a source backing your statement that a large proportion of "everyone else" doesn't mind Cuba, and Saudi Arabia being on the HRC. in regards to nation states?

Cuba and Saudi Arabia were elected to the Human Rights Commission.

Just today Syria is getting ganged up on by the rest of the world. Don't you think that maybe a system where Russia and China can't protect it from sanctions, there may even be more serious consequences for wrong actions?

I'm not defending the UN, or any of the nonsense associated with it. A system where Russia and China couldn't protect a nation like Syria from being punished doesn't need the UN, or any other international organisation. It merely needs direct punishment from someone.

Sorry, being a bad citizen doesn't really mean you lose the right to vote in most nations. You could be a wife beater, a child abuser, and unless you actually go to jail (treat as ejected from the UN), you keep your right to vote.

Nevertheless, there are actions which justify removing a nation's right to have input in decisions at the UN level. If anyone's committed them, North Korea has.

The UN is meant to be a forum for neutrality and discussion.

Rubbish. If the UN was merely a forum, it wouldn't have a multi-billion budget, it wouldn't have a series of active and regulatory agencies, and it wouldn't take it upon itself to suggest policies. It would simply be a bunch of tables and chairs, with a budget sufficient to supply champagne and smoked salmon sandwiches.

If that were the case, the US would be kicked out right alongside Korea and China.

If I had a dollar for every time some fool started ranting about the US when the crimes of other countries are mentioned, I could underwrite the UN's multi-billion dollar budget myself.

Sorry, being a bad citizen doesn't really mean you lose the right to vote in most nations. You could be a wife beater, a child abuser, and unless you actually go to jail (treat as ejected from the UN), you keep your right to vote.
Actually, at least in Romania, people keep their right to vote even in jail/prison. They can't get elected, but they can vote.

Even the criminals still in prison have the right to vote. However, they can't get ellected until their sentence is over. A sistem in which all the countries were allowed to vote who's in the security council, but only the democratic countries would be allowed to be elected there, seems quite fair. Of course, China would veto any such proposal...;)

I also agree the veto should dissappear and that the UN should have an effective 'army'. I'll go even further and say it should even have its own funds, otherwise it will never be trully independent. Something like a small membership fee could solve this problem.


As I said, as a body working in the current international system, the UN has to be blind to the internal structures of the states due to the statocentric nature of the current world order and the accompanying doctrines of sovereign equality and non-interference. If you want to govern the internatl orders of the states, then you will have to do something like the EU.

Also, unless you want to change world order completely (as I do), you cannot give the UN an army, for the same reason that people do not want to give the EU a standing army - the ability to raise an army and wage war is one of the key elements of statehood. You would be bringing it one step forward to making it a state. Same with giving it independent fundraising (taxation) powers.

Although, it already has a "membership fee". The US never pays it (Ok, rarely pays it and never pays the "recommended" amount) which is why the UN is chronically underfunded.

Although, it already has a "membership fee". The US never pays it (Ok, rarely pays it and never pays the "recommended" amount) which is why the UN is chronically underfunded.
To be fair, the US is top contributor though, Japan second, Germany third.

Playman's Guide to Political Science?

By any meaningful definition, Britain is a republic. True, it has the trappings of a monarchy, but so does the United States, to an extent.

Good one. This is an interesting point, which probably requires a separate thread to argue. Yes the UK functions as a de facto republic. However, the personal powers of the queen equate to those of presidents in many countries, but the queen is not elected. Also, the powers of "the Crown" are much more extensive than those of the executives in Republics and these two factors are only held in check by political pressure. British Citizens are both Citizens and "Subjects".

So, in terms of legal structure the UK is still a monarchy, which is tempered by advice from an elected parliament. But yes, I would argee it can almost be called a de facto Republic. But the correct terminology for this is Constitutional Monachy.

Cuba and Saudi Arabia were elected to the Human Rights Commission.

Yes, but they are not the only members.


Rubbish. If the UN was merely a forum, it wouldn't have a multi-billion budget, it wouldn't have a series of active and regulatory agencies, and it wouldn't take it upon itself to suggest policies. It would simply be a bunch of tables and chairs, with a budget sufficient to supply champagne and smoked salmon sandwiches.

The UN is a forum. The other agencies which take up most of its funding are ancilliary to it and many were created by edicts from the GA. Part of the function of the forum is that it can lead to concensus which leads to action, actions like creating these agencies. In fact, some of the agencies, like the International Court of Justice are legacies from the League of Nations and have only been assimilated into the main body of the UN, rather than being part of its main mandate.


[/QUOTE]

Yes, but they are not the only members.

True, but they are typical of the shower that constitutes the Human Rights Commission.

The UN is a forum. The other agencies which take up most of its funding are ancilliary to it and many were created by edicts from the GA. Part of the function of the forum is that it can lead to concensus which leads to action, actions like creating these agencies. In fact, some of the agencies, like the International Court of Justice are legacies from the League of Nations and have only been assimilated into the main body of the UN, rather than being part of its main mandate.

You've contradicted yourself. Either it is a forum, where countries send their representatives to waffle, or it is akin to a government that legislates and operates agencies that carry out the legislation and policy. The UN is the latter.

As I said, as a body working in the current international system, the UN has to be blind to the internal structures of the states due to the statocentric nature of the current world order and the accompanying doctrines of sovereign equality and non-interference. If you want to govern the internatl orders of the states, then you will have to do something like the EU.
The UN wouldn't have to interfere in the internal policy of its members - they'd just have to determine if they are democracies or not (for example, if a head of state has just been elected for a fifth consecutive term, there's no question what country he leads). But I have to point out the UN has already meddled in the internal affairs of Yugoslavia, for example. Theoretically at least, national sovereignty doesn't counts if you're disrespecting the human rights. Of course, it helps if you're a powerfull country with nukes, like China - which is why we seen N. Korea and Iran developing nuclear programs.

Also, unless you want to change world order completely (as I do), you cannot give the UN an army, for the same reason that people do not want to give the EU a standing army - the ability to raise an army and wage war is one of the key elements of statehood. You would be bringing it one step forward to making it a state. Same with giving it independent fundraising (taxation) powers.
I agree an army would give more power to the UN, but what's the point in having such a body if it can't enforce it's own decisions? The army would make the UN more 'statelike', but that's not a problem in itslef. The problem is what type of state will it be.

The UN would only receive funds from the 'membership fee'. It would have no fundraising powers (I'm sure we all feel we're already paying enough taxes;)).

Although, it already has a "membership fee". The US never pays it (Ok, rarely pays it and never pays the "recommended" amount) which is why the UN is chronically underfunded.
A country which doesn't pay its fee is in the category of the 'criminals'. Therefore, it will have the right to vote, but not to be elected in the Security Council. I'm sure in these conditions the US would become a model contributor. :)

Cuba and Saudi Arabia were elected to the Human Rights Commission.


So it meant that the people around, even those in the security council, didn't have a beef with letting them in. Or at least enough of a problem to do something like veto it. So what's your problem then?


Nevertheless, there are actions which justify removing a nation's right to have input in decisions at the UN level. If anyone's committed them, North Korea has.

Really? And what would these actions be?


Rubbish. If the UN was merely a forum, it wouldn't have a multi-billion budget, it wouldn't have a series of active and regulatory agencies, and it wouldn't take it upon itself to suggest policies. It would simply be a bunch of tables and chairs, with a budget sufficient to supply champagne and smoked salmon sandwiches.

Nationstates is a forum. I can't say how big a budget it has, but it does have a a series of active and regulatory agencies. They're called mods. And there are rules too in nationstates. The mods enforce them. Too bad the UN doesn't have the ability to DEAT offenders does it?

To equate, cyberspace is the world, your computer, your nation, and nationstates, the UN, with the mods as the various enforcement agencies.


If I had a dollar for every time some fool started ranting about the US when the crimes of other countries are mentioned, I could underwrite the UN's multi-billion dollar budget myself.

Oh, I'm sorry. Would you have preferred Israel? Or perhaps Russia? Or any other dozen countries that routinely do things that make them a pariah if their laundry was taken out to air? Like supporting insurgencies and armed proxies, a favorite of Cold War participants. Or maybe indulging in border disputes like India and Pakistan? The UN with the entry requirements you talk about would have a very, very, small membership.

So it meant that the people around, even those in the security council, didn't have a beef with letting them in. Or at least enough of a problem to do something like veto it. So what's your problem then?

You don't see anything slightly problematic in a human rights body with a membership that includes Saudi Arabia and Cuba, two of the worst human rights violators on Earth.

There is no provision for a veto by the Permanent Members of the Security Council in the selection.

The 53 States members of the Commission on Human Rights are elected by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). This election, which usually takes place in May each year, elects approximately a third of the members of the Commission. The members serve for three-year periods and can be re-elected. The Commission has no permanent members.

The 53 seats of the Commission are distributed as follows:

African States 15, Asian States 12, Eastern European States 5, Latin American & Caribbean States 11, Western Europe & Other States 10.

Really? And what would these actions be?

If you actually have to ask that question, it can be safely assumed that you have neither the intelligence, or even the basic literacy skills to interpret the answer.

Nationstates is a forum. I can't say how big a budget it has, but it does have a a series of active and regulatory agencies. They're called mods. And there are rules too in nationstates. The mods enforce them. Too bad the UN doesn't have the ability to DEAT offenders does it?

To equate, cyberspace is the world, your computer, your nation, and nationstates, the UN, with the mods as the various enforcement agencies.

Idiot. You have no idea. There is a difference between moderators in a forum, who's sole purpose is to keep the discourse within a set of agreed rules ensuring (basically) that everyone can have his say, and a set of agencies that actually carry out tasks beyond the scope of simply keeping the Jordanian delegate from throttling the Israeli delegate.

The fact that you can't figure this out for yourself suggests that you're either trolling, or too stupid to figure it out. Either way, you shouldn't be posting.

Oh, I'm sorry. Would you have preferred Israel? Or perhaps Russia? Or any other dozen countries that routinely do things that make them a pariah if their laundry was taken out to air? Like supporting insurgencies and armed proxies, a favorite of Cold War participants. Or maybe indulging in border disputes like India and Pakistan? The UN with the entry requirements you talk about would have a very, very, small membership.

I would prefer a debate in which people read what others post, and make considered, intelligent responses that actually answer the questions posed in the thread. Clearly you are not capable of this, or are not willing to do it.

You don't see anything slightly problematic in a human rights body with a membership that includes Saudi Arabia and Cuba, two of the worst human rights violators on Earth.


I think the point is.... The biggest players don't seem to have a problem with them being there, USA included.

Please do some reading, I'll reiterate:

The 53 States members of the Commission on Human Rights are elected by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). This election, which usually takes place in May each year, elects approximately a third of the members of the Commission. The members serve for three-year periods and can be re-elected. The Commission has no permanent members.

The 53 seats of the Commission are distributed as follows:

African States 15, Asian States 12, Eastern European States 5, Latin American & Caribbean States 11, Western Europe & Other States 10.

Notice the lack of the word "veto".

I lifted that from this page: http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/membership.htm

Please do some reading, I'll reiterate:

The 53 States members of the Commission on Human Rights are elected by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). This election, which usually takes place in May each year, elects approximately a third of the members of the Commission. The members serve for three-year periods and can be re-elected. The Commission has no permanent members.

The 53 seats of the Commission are distributed as follows:

African States 15, Asian States 12, Eastern European States 5, Latin American & Caribbean States 11, Western Europe & Other States 10.

Notice the lack of the word "veto".

I lifted that from this page: http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/membership.htm

I..never.. mentioned veto :confused: . That wasn't my point- countries (ie the Big 5) have enough pulll these days without having to use their veto.

Bottom line- no one in the UN is whiter then white. No one can start 'casting the first stone'- particularly when coming to the Human Rights Chair.

The former UNHCHR Mary Robinson pissed so many Western countries off by continuingly highlighting their shortcomings- she was pressured out of her job by big player countries.

Well, enjoy. But keep us out of it. It's none of our damn business. We have better things to do than meddle.



Riiiiight. This country never meddles in others' affairs. Of course not. :rolleyes:

The Us and the UK has wanted certain countries out of the Human Rights Commission for years, such as Sudan, Cuba, and Zimbabwe. The leaders have said as much publically.

If the US doesn't have the pull (as demonstrated by its inability to get what it wants), no one has.

"Zimbabwe was re-elected on Wednesday to the UN human rights commission, ... Zimbabwe—whose leader Robert Mugabe is under US and European sanctions. ‘The United States is perplexed and dismayed by the decision,’ said US diplomat William Brencick."

Surely even you can recognise that countries like Sudan, China, Cuba, Suadi Arabia, and Zimbabwe have no place on any sort of human rights panel. Its not about a particular nation being entirely blameless, and frankly such an exercise in moral equivilance is nothing more than an insult to the intelligence of anyone reading it, it is about which nations are better or worse in terms of human rights.

-snip-
and frankly such an exercise in moral equivilance is nothing more than an insult to the intelligence of anyone reading it, it is about which nations are better or worse in terms of human rights.

Kinda splitting hairs though aren't you? "We're not sooo bad... compared to "
Is that they way you want to be known as? You're not as bad as Mugabe, or the Taliban... or Iran?

As a democracy, one should aspire to so much more.:(

Edit: For instance
The execution of those with mental illness or "the insane" is clearly prohibited by international law and virtually every country in the world. Despite these standards, and constitutional law, the USA continues to execute people with diagnosed schizophrenia, those that suffer from severe delusions, and others with clinically-labeled mental illnesses.

And
Since 2000, only five countries are known to have executed juvenile offenders: [I]China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Pakistan, and the USA. 13 of these 21 executions have been in the USA

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/index.do
Not exactly great company to keep.

You don't see anything slightly problematic in a human rights body with a membership that includes Saudi Arabia and Cuba, two of the worst human rights violators on Earth.

Did the members who elected them in have a problem? Was the process fair and unbiased? Was the nomination free from intimidation and/or influential factors initiated by the nominees themselves?

If the answer is yes on all counts, then it would seem to be that it was a fair and impartial nomination, one which I would not dispute if I were to even hold onto a faint claim of letting a democratic process work out.


If you actually have to ask that question, it can be safely assumed that you have neither the intelligence, or even the basic literacy skills to interpret the answer.

Really? I would have to take your response as a sign that you are a person of little patience and is quick to resort to insults to a valid question. Perhaps you are suffering from some sort of stress recently. You mentioned North Korea. Fine. Which particular act/acts of North Korea would you use as the reason to eject them from the UN? The field is wide, and you never did specify.

Either you choose to answer, or you can choose to throw more insults my way. It will only give me the ammunition for future use against you should I choose to employ it.


Idiot. You have no idea. There is a difference between moderators in a forum, who's sole purpose is to keep the discourse within a set of agreed rules ensuring (basically) that everyone can have his say, and a set of agencies that actually carry out tasks beyond the scope of simply keeping the Jordanian delegate from throttling the Israeli delegate.

In the grand scheme of things, there is actually very little difference. The UN cannot really force a country to do something that said country does not wish to do. What it can do, which is one of it's more apparent functions, is to monitor other countries to ensure that they abide by the rules set down and signed, and if that fails, by calling on the other signatories to enforce it (voluntary here).

The Mods do a bit more than simply keep the delegates civil after all. The only difference is that in the event of a violation of rules, they have the ability to enforce them. The UN must rely on member nations most of the time.


The fact that you can't figure this out for yourself suggests that you're either trolling, or too stupid to figure it out.

Or it could be that I simply see things in a different way from you and that you are very intolerant of differing viewpoints, resorting to deregatory terminology to attempt to shout down the opposition so to speak.


Either way, you shouldn't be posting.

I could say you should be responding to my questions in a civil manner, but I think that, given your espoused views of my intellect, or perceived lack thereoff, will quickly become beyond you fairly shortly.


I would prefer a debate in which people read what others post, and make considered, intelligent responses that actually answer the questions posed in the thread. Clearly you are not capable of this, or are not willing to do it.

Is your definition of intelligent responses simply those that agree with you? I have given responses that I believed would be quite apt as an answer, really I did. And you respond with insults.

What is the basis for making North Korea equal in decision making to Sweden?

This dilemma is the base of all the UN's problems, it is why they will do nothing about anything, because the nations which should be sanctions are in charge of deciding who gets sanctioned. A Human Rights Commission whose members include Cuba, and Zimbabwe?!

As for your point 3, the General Assembly is little more than a collection of Third-World anti-semites, dictators, and rent-seekers. The Security Council Veto places a check on their corruption, and idiocy.

The best way to reform the UN is to abolish it, demolish the building, and sell the site to a property developer.

Couldn't agree more!

*Hands Disraeliland a big cookie*

The UN wouldn't have to interfere in the internal policy of its members - they'd just have to determine if they are democracies or not (for example, if a head of state has just been elected for a fifth consecutive term, there's no question what country he leads). But I have to point out the UN has already meddled in the internal affairs of Yugoslavia, for example. Theoretically at least, national sovereignty doesn't counts if you're disrespecting the human rights. Of course, it helps if you're a powerfull country with nukes, like China - which is why we seen N. Korea and Iran developing nuclear programs.


I agree an army would give more power to the UN, but what's the point in having such a body if it can't enforce it's own decisions? The army would make the UN more 'statelike', but that's not a problem in itslef. The problem is what type of state will it be.

The UN would only receive funds from the 'membership fee'. It would have no fundraising powers (I'm sure we all feel we're already paying enough taxes;)).


A country which doesn't pay its fee is in the category of the 'criminals'. Therefore, it will have the right to vote, but not to be elected in the Security Council. I'm sure in these conditions the US would become a model contributor. :)

Fair enough, just making sure you know the implications. Although you know your "membership fees" are going to be paid through national taxes anyway.

I think the UN becoming more statelike would be a good thing, but you would still need a forum in which to address countries which are outside this main block.

The point of the UN is that it is neutral.

The UN is not neutral. They have double-standards when it comes to racism. They denounce Israel as "racist," yet not Cuba, where blacks are so shunned, ill-treated, and disadvantaged they're forced to eat out of garbage cans. They denounced apartheid South Africa as "racist" (which it was), yet say nothing about Zimbabwe's racism.

True, but they are typical of the shower that constitutes the Human Rights Commission.

Yes, of course :rolleyes:


You've contradicted yourself. Either it is a forum, where countries send their representatives to waffle, or it is akin to a government that legislates and operates agencies that carry out the legislation and policy. The UN is the latter.

No, just because a forum can take some action doesn't make it any less of a forum.

1)The UN GA does not directly control the actions of the other agencies, they are for the most part autonomous bodies set up by the the UN and funded by the UN.

2)All the UN does is act as a regular forum where states can meet to create non-binding "resolutions" which are basically a statment of majority consensus, thereby exerting political pressure only and not being akin to legislation, or sometimes treaties (which are a normal part of international relations and not a function unique to the UN) to create the ancilliary bodies.

3) The SC does not control armed interventions as such, it only authorises the use of force and creates a structure within which an international force can be set up. States are not technically obliged to take part - this is not the same as a governing body controlling the use of force.

But you do believe in Democracy, right?
And in a democracy, when the majority decides something, you really have no right to stop that decision from being implemented. And that's exactly what the UNSC-Veto Rule does.

And besides, as long as Iran doesn't build nukes, it should be free to create as much energy as it wants with nuclear power. I think we all agree on that - but it might be better to leave it there, lest I hijack my own thread.
No. I don't believe in direct democracy. It leads to a tyranny by the majority. I believe in a system similar to the US government where the majority can only pass laws that don't violate the rights and protections enshrined in the constitution.

The UN is not neutral. They have double-standards when it comes to racism. They denounce Israel as "racist," yet not Cuba, where blacks are so shunned, ill-treated, and disadvantaged they're forced to eat out of garbage cans. They denounced apartheid South Africa as "racist" (which it was), yet say nothing about Zimbabwe's racism.

Yes, the point of the UN is that it is supposed to be neutral, but it usually isn't due to problems such as the veto as well as the fact that it has to be politically sensitive. If it went steaming in saying that Zimbabwe was racist it would look like it was being pro-white, especially since many states think that the UN is largely run in the interests of the US. Same with Cuba - looks like it is serving the US interests.

Fair enough, just making sure you know the implications. Although you know your "membership fees" are going to be paid through national taxes anyway.
Yes, that's right.

I think the UN becoming more statelike would be a good thing, but you would still need a forum in which to address countries which are outside this main block.
You mean, the countries not elected to the Security Council? They could still propose resolutions and such, the power to actually aproove them remaining with the SC.

I see our oppinions are actually converging. Cool.:)

P.S. Just wanted to add I'm quite pessimistic regarding the posibility for the UN to be reformed according to my wishes. At most, a few more countries might be accepted as permanent members of the Security Council.

P.P.S. Do you realise the European Union has three permanent seats there? If they/we get more integrated, will this be like one country holding three seats?

I'm pretty sure that the opinions of people in an internet forum have nothing to do with the opinions of the world's political elite.
This forum contains alot of politically active people. Many of them do represent the majority opinions in the nations they come from.

No. I don't believe in direct democracy. It leads to a tyranny by the majority. I believe in a system similar to the US government where the majority can only pass laws that don't violate the rights and protections enshrined in the constitution.
But even in the US, the constitution can be changed by the majority. They are called amendaments.

The Us and the UK has wanted certain countries out of the Human Rights Commission for years, such as Sudan, Cuba, and Zimbabwe. The leaders have said as much publically.

If the US doesn't have the pull (as demonstrated by its inability to get what it wants), no one has.



Surely even you can recognise that countries like Sudan, China, Cuba, Suadi Arabia, and Zimbabwe have no place on any sort of human rights panel. Its not about a particular nation being entirely blameless, and frankly such an exercise in moral equivilance is nothing more than an insult to the intelligence of anyone reading it, it is about which nations are better or worse in terms of human rights.

You're not really considering the wider political considerations involved in these appointments. The Zimbabwe thing is not as clear cut as you are making out. Prior to Mugabe coming into power, the majority of the profitable land was owned by the small white minority and a lot of African states respect him for overturning that. And a lot of these states won't see the 'clearances' that we are hearing about due to the poorer level of media coverage and so forth. Rumour and innuendo to them.

Add that to the fact that the number of states on the Commission is enough to overcome the influence of a few human rights violators, and I really don't see how it's so big a problem.

Representative democracy doesn't ;)

EDIT: Speaking of representative democracy, and returning to the thread, why exacly do you think that democracy is bad in the UN context?
Look at the majority of nations that comprise the UN. They're not civilized, advanced nations like those of Europe, they're savage third world "developing" nations. FFS look at the nations that comprise the Human Rights committe.

1. Argentina 2005
2. Armenia 2007
3. Australia 2005
4. Bhutan 2006
5. Brazil 2005
6. Burkina Faso 2005
7. Canada 2007
8. China 2005
9. Congo 2006
10. Costa Rica 2006
11. Cuba 2006
12. Dominican Republic 2006
13. Ecuador 2007
14. Egypt 2006
15. Eritrea 2006
16. Ethiopia 2006
17. Finland 2007
18. France 2007
19. Gabon 2005
20. Germany 2005
21. Guatemala 2006
22. Guinea 2007
23. Honduras 2006
24. Hungary 2006
25. India 2006
26. Indonesia 2006
27. Ireland 2005
28. Italy 2006
29. Japan 2005
30. Kenya 2007
31. Malaysia 2007
32. Mauritania 2006
33. Mexico 2007
34. Nepal 2006
35. Netherlands 2006
36. Nigeria 2006
37. Pakistan 2007
38. Paraguay 2005
39. Peru 2006
40. Qatar 2006
41. Republic of Korea 2007
42. Romania 2007
43. Russian Federation 2006
44. Saudi Arabia 2006
45. South Africa 2006
46. Sri Lanka 2005
47. Sudan 2007
48. Swaziland 2005
49. Togo 2007
50. Ukraine 2005
51. United Kingdom 2006
52. United States of America 2005
53. Zimbabwe 2005

Saudi Arabia? Cuba? China? Nigeria? WTF?

But even in the US, the constitution can be changed by the majority. They are called amendaments.
Not by a simple majority. By a majority of two thirds. And that's so difficult to do that it's seldom attempted.

The Zimbabwe thing is not as clear cut as you are making out. Prior to Mugabe coming into power, the majority of the profitable land was owned by the small white minority and a lot of African states respect him for overturning that.

More than 50% of the white-owned land was bought (with government approval) after Mugabe seized power. Moreover, Mugabe's policies are not only racist, but cause great havoc for the country, economically, socially, and politically. Land is seized without compensation, given to government supporters and cronies, and land owners and their workers are subjected to murder, intimidation, and violence.

Yes, that's right.


You mean, the countries not elected to the Security Council? They could still propose resolutions and such, the power to actually aproove them remaining with the SC.

I see our oppinions are actually converging. Cool.:)

P.S. Just wanted to add I'm quite pessimistic regarding the posibility for the UN to be reformed according to my wishes. At most, a few more countries might be accepted as permanent members of the Security Council.

P.P.S. Do you realise the European Union has three permanent seats there? If they/we get more integrated, will this be like one country holding three seats?

Yeah, quite pessemistic about that too considering the massive failure at the latest talks.

I knew the EU had a permanent seat, but it's only got "observer" status so it can't actually do anything. But if i was from outside the EU I would be asking why a body that is talking about having it's own army and which is introducing a unified foreign policy effectively has 2 vetos on the SC.

More than 50% of the white-owned land was bought (with government approval) after Mugabe seized power. Moreover, Mugabe's policies are not only racist, but cause great havoc for the country, economically, socially, and politically. Land is seized without compensation, given to government supporters and cronies, and land owners and their workers are subjected to murder, intimidation, and violence.

I know, but that's not how a lot of African nations see it. They see it as undoing the wrongs of colonialism.

I know, but that's not how a lot of African nations see it. They see it as undoing the wrongs of colonialism.

No surprise there, many African nations are very racist. Which is understandable, given the way they were mistreated by whites, but that doesn't justify it. Many whites were in the forefront of the fight for racial equality: Beyers-Naude, Helen Suzman, Alan Paton, and Donald Woods, for example.

Not by a simple majority. By a majority of two thirds. And that's so difficult to do that it's seldom attempted.
It's still a dictatorship by majority. In your first case, 51 out of 100 people can force the other 49 to do anything. In this case, it's 67. The numbers are different, but the principle is the same. You have to accept that the US is a democracy, and that this is actually a compliment.:)

No surprise there, many African nations are very racist. Which is understandable, given the way they were mistreated by whites, but that doesn't justify it. Many whites were in the forefront of the fight for racial equality: Beyers-Naude, Helen Suzman, Alan Paton, and Donald Woods, for example.

Note: Most African people are not racist, their governments are. Just wanted to clarify.

Yeah, quite pessemistic about that too considering the massive failure at the latest talks.

I knew the EU had a permanent seat, but it's only got "observer" status so it can't actually do anything. But if i was from outside the EU I would be asking why a body that is talking about having it's own army and which is introducing a unified foreign policy effectively has 2 vetos on the SC.
For the moment, it's still all right to have two vetos, because they don't yet represent the EU as a whole, but two different countries with two different oppinions (just look at France's and Britain's different stances on the war in Irak). In the future, however...

It's still a dictatorship by majority. In your first case, 51 out of 100 people can force the other 49 to do anything. In this case, it's 67. The numbers are different, but the principle is the same. You have to accept that the US is a democracy, and that this is actually a compliment.:)
If you're forced to get a two thirds majority you reduce the possibility that any minority will be unfairly treated since in all likelyhood you'd need at least some members of that group to vote in your favor. I can only think of two ammendments off the top of my head that actually reduced freedom. Prohibition and income tax. Income tax was necessary, and prohibition was repealed. The rest of the ammendments actually served to increase freedom for minorities and for the population in general.

Now if you look at laws passed by simple majority you will find that they have a much worse record of trampling freedom and minority rights.

No, just because a forum can take some action doesn't make it any less of a forum.

1)The UN GA does not directly control the actions of the other agencies, they are for the most part autonomous bodies set up by the the UN and funded by the UN.

2)All the UN does is act as a regular forum where states can meet to create non-binding "resolutions" which are basically a statment of majority consensus, thereby exerting political pressure only and not being akin to legislation, or sometimes treaties (which are a normal part of international relations and not a function unique to the UN) to create the ancilliary bodies.

3) The SC does not control armed interventions as such, it only authorises the use of force and creates a structure within which an international force can be set up. States are not technically obliged to take part - this is not the same as a governing body controlling the use of force.

That the UN includes a forum doesn't mean that it is essentially a forum.

The UN runs a vast array of bureaucracies for all things from food aid, to cultural programs.

All of these are beyond the scope of a simple forum.

You're right that the addition of other functions doesn't make the UN less of a forum, and that is part of what's wrong with it, it is far more than a forum, too much more.

Kinda splitting hairs though aren't you? "We're not sooo bad... compared to [insert dictatorship here]"
Is that they way you want to be known as? You're not as bad as Mugabe, or the Taliban... or Iran?

No, no one's discussing the US here. It is simply irrelevant to the sheer idiocy of having countries like Sudan and China on a human rights commission. Throwing around cliches like "nobody's perfect" as though they are meaningful statements (which is essentially what the whole side-discussion of the United States is) hardly disproves my thesis that the presence of such countries on the commission brings the commission, and the UN itself into the most grave disrepute.

Did the members who elected them in have a problem? Was the process fair and unbiased? Was the nomination free from intimidation and/or influential factors initiated by the nominees themselves?

If the answer is yes on all counts, then it would seem to be that it was a fair and impartial nomination, one which I would not dispute if I were to even hold onto a faint claim of letting a democratic process work out.

Don't change the subject, your thesis was that the major powers must be OK with countries like Cuba being on the human rights commission because they haven't prevented it. My point is that whether they like it or not, countries that rank as the least free, with the worst human rights records are on the UN's body intended to promote human rights, and expose and do something about human rights violations.

The idea that there is no problem with the countries the CHR should be scrutinising are in charge of providing scrutiny is ridiculous.

Really? I would have to take your response as a sign that you are a person of little patience and is quick to resort to insults to a valid question. Perhaps you are suffering from some sort of stress recently. You mentioned North Korea. Fine. Which particular act/acts of North Korea would you use as the reason to eject them from the UN? The field is wide, and you never did specify.

Either you choose to answer, or you can choose to throw more insults my way. It will only give me the ammunition for future use against you should I choose to employ it.

Your magazine's loaded with blanks. North Korea obviously deserves to be treated worse than Sweden, Sweden doesn't break every international agreement it signs, it doesn't launch invasions without just cause, it doesn't herd thousands of its people into concentration camps, and test biological weapons on them.

In the grand scheme of things, there is actually very little difference.

Yes there is. There is a whole world of difference between a forum, and a set of active agencies. A forum is simply talk. Active agencies go out into the world and do things. The very existance of such agencies as the World Food Program prove that the UN is not simply a forum. It is a wannabe world government.

Or it could be that I simply see things in a different way from you and that you are very intolerant of differing viewpoints, resorting to deregatory terminology to attempt to shout down the opposition so to speak.

A fact is not a viewpoint, and it is a fact that the UN operates several agencies that go out into the world and act on various issues. This is far beyond the scope of a simple forum in which delegates of nations discuss what matters to them.

Is your definition of intelligent responses simply those that agree with you? I have given responses that I believed would be quite apt as an answer, really I did. And you respond with insults.

Claiming to have given such responses is not the same as giving them. Not being able to distinguish between mere discussion, and action hardly indicates intelligent responses. Nor does taking up an irrelevant side-discussion that has no impact on anyone's thesis either way.

To those who wish more powers for the UN: Given that the UN has in the last few years demonstrated a level of corruption which in private enterprise would see everyone in a firm from the CEO up to the janitors in prison; and given that it has demonstrated an unwillingness to act if certain parties are offended, how can you justify giving such an organisation more power, to the point of operating independent military forces and having the ability to unilaterally raise revenue?

It is rather like saying that Enron executives should be made CEO's of as many firms as possible.

Note: Most African people are not racist, their governments are. Just wanted to clarify.
I've met a few Liberians who are racist. They think American blacks are lazy and criminal. They don't seem to have a problem with whites though.

You're not really considering the wider political considerations involved in these appointments. The Zimbabwe thing is not as clear cut as you are making out. Prior to Mugabe coming into power, the majority of the profitable land was owned by the small white minority and a lot of African states respect him for overturning that. And a lot of these states won't see the 'clearances' that we are hearing about due to the poorer level of media coverage and so forth. Rumour and innuendo to them.

And that changes the fact that Mugabe is a serial human rights violator from the time when he was nothing more than a petty communist thug trying to bring down a government, how exactly?

Add that to the fact that the number of states on the Commission is enough to overcome the influence of a few human rights violators, and I really don't see how it's so big a problem.

You're talking theory. I'll talk reality. The Human Rights Commission has had no meaningful achievement, especially where it concerns the actions of governments represented on the commission.

You simply cannot divorce the presence of criminals on this body from its inability to even say something.

No surprise there, many African nations are very racist. Which is understandable, given the way they were mistreated by whites, but that doesn't justify it. Many whites were in the forefront of the fight for racial equality: Beyers-Naude, Helen Suzman, Alan Paton, and Donald Woods, for example.
But the average person has never heard of them. The only ones who are famous are Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and - to a lesser degree - Malcom X.

Back to Zimbabwe. I'm not supporting what's happened there, but how would the Americans feel if one third of their land was owned by the descendents of the people who have conquered them 100 years ago? I just want to show that, although the land confiscation is regretable and bad for the economy, it could have been somehow predicted.
If you're forced to get a two thirds majority you reduce the possibility that any minority will be unfairly treated since in all likelyhood you'd need at least some members of that group to vote in your favor. I can only think of two ammendments off the top of my head that actually reduced freedom. Prohibition and income tax. Income tax was necessary, and prohibition was repealed. The rest of the ammendments actually served to increase freedom for minorities and for the population in general.

Now if you look at laws passed by simple majority you will find that they have a much worse record of trampling freedom and minority rights.
I agree that fewer people would be made unhappy in the case of the 2/3 majority, but this is still a democracy. That was my point, not that a 51% majority is better than a 67% majority.

But you do believe in Democracy, right?
And in a democracy, when the majority decides something, you really have no right to stop that decision from being implemented. And that's exactly what the UNSC-Veto Rule does.
A common fallacy. Majority rule does not a democracy make. Democracy is a majority rule based on the rule of law.

But the average person has never heard of them. The only ones who are famous are Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and - to a lesser degree - Malcom X.

Back to Zimbabwe. I'm not supporting what's happened there, but how would the Americans feel if one third of their land was owned by the descendents of the people who have conquered them 100 years ago? I just want to show that, although the land confiscation is regretable and bad for the economy, it could have been somehow predicted.

Most South Africans have heard of them. Donald Woods was a prominent anti-apartheid activist who helped expose Steve Biko's killing to the world. Helen Suzman led the anti-apartheid Progressive Party. Beyers-Naude was an anti-apartheid preacher of the Dutch Reformed Church. Alan Paton was an anti-apartheid writer and activist. They're all well known to South Africans.

But in Zimbabwe, average people aren't benefitting from the land reform program. Government cronies are.

And that changes the fact that Mugabe is a serial human rights violator from the time when he was nothing more than a petty communist thug trying to bring down a government, how exactly?
Considering Mugabe's been leading Zimababwe for more than 20 years, he certainlly looks like a dictator.
You're talking theory. I'll talk reality. The Human Rights Commission has had no meaningful achievement, especially where it concerns the actions of governments represented on the commission.

You simply cannot divorce the presence of criminals on this body from its inability to even say something.
If the countries not respecting the human rights would be prevented from holding positions in decision making bodies, but not from the UN, then this would no longer be an issue.

I know I'm intervening in a discution, but feel free to ignore me for a while. I'm going to work out and then eat, so I won't be able to reply anyway. I wish you happy arguing.;)

I've met a few Liberians who are racist. They think American blacks are lazy and criminal. They don't seem to have a problem with whites though.

Most Liberians I met are extremely friendly and sweet people. Their government is quite racist, however (against whites).

Many whites were in the forefront of the fight for racial equality: Beyers-Naude, Helen Suzman, Alan Paton, and Donald Woods, for example.
And many whites were in the forefront of the fight against it. I don't think we can go about generalising either way.

Saudi Arabia? Cuba? China? Nigeria? WTF?
What's wrong with Nigeria?
I'd agree that Obasanjo is not the most naturally democratic people around, but he protested against previous regimes' violations of human rights. Surely you could've found someone worse on there. Like any of the Central Asian countries (I didn't go through the list in detail).

A common fallacy. Majority rule does not a democracy make. Democracy is a majority rule based on the rule of law.
In most democracies the law is subject to change if a sufficiently large majority decides to do so. And besides, Demos doesn't mean "law" if memory serves.
And there are equivalents of a constitution in the UN too, with the Charter and the various treaties that the nations of the world are subject to.
It's not like it would really be a mob rule of the various savages that our group of white men are so burdened with.

Don't change the subject, your thesis was that the major powers must be OK with countries like Cuba being on the human rights commission because they haven't prevented it.

Events have proven in the past that when the major powers want something badly enough, they are quite willing to go against international law as well as acts of near direct war to do so. For example, the funding of armed groups currently in conflict with a nation you cannot directly wage war with. I do not think however, that this particular recourse alone is available to the major powers.

Certain major powers may have objected. But they obviously did not think it was worth it to intercede in the affair beyond that. Or at least to the point where a change could be affected.


My point is that whether they like it or not, countries that rank as the least free, with the worst human rights records are on the UN's body intended to promote human rights, and expose and do something about human rights violations.

The idea that there is no problem with the countries the CHR should be scrutinising are in charge of providing scrutiny is ridiculous.




Your magazine's loaded with blanks. North Korea obviously deserves to be treated worse than Sweden, Sweden doesn't break every international agreement it signs, it doesn't launch invasions without just cause

The only invasion I have ever heard of by North Korea is that of South Korea. And looking at the power divide of the time between the blocs, it seemed inevitable that war would have broken out between them, by proxies if not directly.

As for treated worse. Treated worse how? By being invaded? Or being sanctioned? Or simply being ignored on the international level?


it doesn't herd thousands of its people into concentration camps, and test biological weapons on them.

You have a source for this? I haven't heard of it before.


A fact is not a viewpoint, and it is a fact that the UN operates several agencies that go out into the world and act on various issues. This is far beyond the scope of a simple forum in which delegates of nations discuss what matters to them.

I believe you earlier on admitted that the UN is no less a forum. Granted, it has more powers than a simple internet forum, but at it's core, still provides the same function of a forum does it not?


To those who wish more powers for the UN: Given that the UN has in the last few years demonstrated a level of corruption which in private enterprise would see everyone in a firm from the CEO up to the janitors in prison; and given that it has demonstrated an unwillingness to act if certain parties are offended, how can you justify giving such an organisation more power, to the point of operating independent military forces and having the ability to unilaterally raise revenue?


To put it simply, I would rather see the UN free from the factors that have caused it to play servant to the major powers when it comes for the time to actually do something. The UN relies on the goodwill and cooperation of other nations to do things, as it should since it is after all, an organization designed to provide that. However, this level of cooperation often is given only when the self interests of said nation is served, and usually to the detriment of other nations.

The idea of military forces however, is much trickier. To what end would the idea of UN military forces serve? In most cases, it would probably fall into the role of world policeman. Here in lies the rub. By what rules and more importantly, what authority, should a world policeman operate by? Can it conduct the equivalent of arrests and detainment on the grounds of breech of treaty alone or will it require a concensus of nations? A policeman does not need to rely on the concensus of the taxpayers when arresting someone breaking a crime. A world policeman on the other hand, might have to. Or should it?

To date, the role of world policeman is self bestowed, and on a nation at that. One would be foolish to say that said nation will not act on its own self interest when it wishes to do so. Would it be different if it was given to a stateless entity?

Events have proven in the past that when the major powers want something badly enough, they are quite willing to go against international law as well as acts of near direct war to do so. For example, the funding of armed groups currently in conflict with a nation you cannot directly wage war with. I do not think however, that this particular recourse alone is available to the major powers.

Certain major powers may have objected. But they obviously did not think it was worth it to intercede in the affair beyond that. Or at least to the point where a change could be affected.

You're grasping. I have proven that major powers don't control elections to the human rights commission, and that was not something I needed to prove to prove my main thesis about the CHR, namely that it membership including Libya is absurd.

The only invasion I have ever heard of by North Korea is that of South Korea. And looking at the power divide of the time between the blocs, it seemed inevitable that war would have broken out between them, by proxies if not directly.

Irrelevant, North Korea had no right to invade the South.

North Korea has also supported communist terrorist groups in Africa.

I believe you earlier on admitted that the UN is no less a forum. Granted, it has more powers than a simple internet forum, but at it's core, still provides the same function of a forum does it not?

You really aren't comprehending. That it provides forum functions is not disputed. The notion that the UN is simply a forum is disproven, the UN does much more. Its powers are far beyond the scope of a forum, and intrude on governments. A simple forum doesn't campaign in Brazil to disarm victims and potential victims of crime. A simple forum doesn't operate a group of massive aid agencies.

To put it simply, I would rather see the UN free from the factors that have caused it to play servant to the major powers when it comes for the time to actually do something. The UN relies on the goodwill and cooperation of other nations to do things, as it should since it is after all, an organization designed to provide that. However, this level of cooperation often is given only when the self interests of said nation is served, and usually to the detriment of other nations.

You haven't answered the question, You've merely spouted an internationalist rant.

You haven't answered the point about corruption. Could you answer this, and another point following it: it is virtually impossible to hold the UN and its officials to account. They aren't elected, and they can't be arrested by any national government. They are above the law. The UN Headquarters fragrantly violates the laws of New York City, County, and State, as well as US laws, all while living on its soil. The Oil-for Bribes, Palaces, and Palestinian Terrorists program illustrates the difficulty in holding their officials to account.

The UN won't even deal with sexual abuses by its staff and peacekeeping troops.

Increasing their power can only increase the corruption. Removing it from any form of account by member states has the same effect.

To date, the role of world policeman is self bestowed, and on a nation at that. One would be foolish to say that said nation will not act on its own self interest when it wishes to do so. Would it be different if it was given to a stateless entity?

No, the UN is already forming independent policy positions, and independent revenue raising and military forces will be used to back those positions.

Giving the UN the right to raise revenue and maintain armed forces will turn it into a de facto world government. An undemocratic regime lording over the nations.

You're grasping. I have proven that major powers don't control elections to the human rights commission, and that was not something I needed to prove to prove my main thesis about the CHR, namely that it membership including Libya is absurd.

Essentially, you are saying that it is contradictory for nations with poor human rights conduct to be on the board dealing with human rights. Although I believe this is the first time you used Libya as an example.

Naturally, we cannot use a single time frame as a judge for a nation throughout it's existence.

So. During their time in the commission, what have these countries, that you mentioned, done? For better, or for worse?


Irrelevant, North Korea had no right to invade the South.


A lot of invasions were usually done without anymore justification than of the invadee having something that the invader wanted. Namely territory and resources. I don't think that's a right. But it is still an inevitability in most cases when you have a desire and military capability to achieve that desire.

I don't say that North Korea was right to invade, or even had a decent reason to do so, but that is hardly grounds for ejecting them from the UN unless you are more willing to apply this standard universally.


North Korea has also supported communist terrorist groups in Africa.


Source again if you don't mind? Like that source on bio-weapon testings on their own citizens I'm still waiting for?


You really aren't comprehending. That it provides forum functions is not disputed. The notion that the UN is simply a forum is disproven, the UN does much more. Its powers are far beyond the scope of a forum, and intrude on governments. A simple forum doesn't campaign in Brazil to disarm victims and potential victims of crime. A simple forum doesn't operate a group of massive aid agencies.

Perhaps not. But that is because I see it not as a simple forum. But rather, a forum with a great deal more power and services than any other. You see it in a different light. Apparently as that of an organization that provides the services of a forum along with others.


You haven't answered the point about corruption. Could you answer this, and another point following it: it is virtually impossible to hold the UN and its officials to account. They aren't elected, and they can't be arrested by any national government. They are above the law.

This one I did not answer for a simple reason. Dealing with corruption is an ongoing issue, that to date, has no absolute answer. Corruption, like in any other organization, happens because the opportunity for the abuse of power will inevitably be taken short of some kind of machine entity being used instead of humans, but I digress. Corruption, in most cases, is dealt with and prevented by the installation of organizations such as Internal Affairs, a policeman for the policeman you might say. Again, as with any system of checks and balances, it also has its weaknesses, but it is better than nothing.

So yes, the UN could do with perhaps a section of Internal Affairs to deal with the issue of corruption, but it would not be a cure all.


The UN Headquarters fragrantly violates the laws of New York City, County, and State, as well as US laws, all while living on its soil.


I would like to see you cite some cases please. I have heard complaints about unpaid parking tickets, but nothing beyond that.


The Oil-for Bribes


You mean the oil for food scandal that showed various entities including French, German and American companies profitting from misappropriated funds?


Palaces, and Palestinian Terrorists program illustrates the difficulty in holding their officials to account.

Palaces? I was not aware that the UN or its officials had any palaces. And Palestinian Terrorist program? Please elaborate.


Increasing their power can only increase the corruption. Removing it from any form of account by member states has the same effect.

And installing at least an Internal Affairs branch to monitor and check corruption would not help?


Giving the UN the right to raise revenue and maintain armed forces will turn it into a de facto world government. An undemocratic regime lording over the nations.

Obviously any such system would need a system of checks and balances to ensure that it can enforce treaty agreements without becoming too powerful. Perhaps you have some to suggest?

But given your attitude, I believe you would rather it be abolished as a whole would you not?

Essentially, you are saying that it is contradictory for nations with poor human rights conduct to be on the board dealing with human rights. Although I believe this is the first time you used Libya as an example.

Naturally, we cannot use a single time frame as a judge for a nation throughout it's existence.

So. During their time in the commission, what have these countries, that you mentioned, done? For better, or for worse?

If you are asking for a cut and dried answer to a continuum question, you wouldn't understand the answer. About the closest we would get to a clear answer is a nation should be evaluated within the time frame of its present governments, or previous governments if they were of the same party (so we'd evaluate North Korea throughout its entire existance as North Korea because the KWP has been in government all the time, we would evaluate Libya from the time Ghadafi seized power onwards, we would not evaluate Germany based upon the crimes of National Socialists though)

As to the general question of sources, a vast wealth of material showing the crimes of these regimes is in the public domain. The idea of anyone being so ignorant of them as to explicitly ask for sources isn't credible.

Perhaps not. But that is because I see it not as a simple forum. But rather, a forum with a great deal more power and services than any other. You see it in a different light. Apparently as that of an organization that provides the services of a forum along with others.

A distinction without a difference. One could describe a national government in the same way (with the legislature being the forum).

This one I did not answer for a simple reason. Dealing with corruption is an ongoing issue, that to date, has no absolute answer. Corruption, like in any other organization, happens because the opportunity for the abuse of power will inevitably be taken short of some kind of machine entity being used instead of humans, but I digress. Corruption, in most cases, is dealt with and prevented by the installation of organizations such as Internal Affairs, a policeman for the policeman you might say. Again, as with any system of checks and balances, it also has its weaknesses, but it is better than nothing.

So yes, the UN could do with perhaps a section of Internal Affairs to deal with the issue of corruption, but it would not be a cure all.

The UN has shown no willingness to investigate itself, let alone actually police itself. In any case, purely internal arrangments of accountability have never been satisfactory, and for an organisation like the UN external accountability is virtually impossible.

I would like to see you cite some cases please. I have heard complaints about unpaid parking tickets, but nothing beyond that.

Violations of state, and federal firearms laws.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/24/90129.shtml

You mean the oil for food scandal that showed various entities including French, German and American companies profitting from misappropriated funds?



I take it you only got the sanitised version that the pro-UN media puts out?

The program was under UN supervision, and not only did they completely fail to spot what Saddam was doing, but they were engaged in the corruption themselves, Kofi Annan's son profitted from it immensly.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg1748.cfm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4131602.stm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html

Palaces? I was not aware that the UN or its officials had any palaces. And Palestinian Terrorist program? Please elaborate.

Saddam Hussein managed to steal billions from a program under UN, funds which he used to fund his life of luxury, and Palestinian terrorists.

And installing at least an Internal Affairs branch to monitor and check corruption would not help?

Not really. The UN has shown no ability to investigate itself, nor could such investigation be fully credible due to the lack of independence.

But given your attitude, I believe you would rather it be abolished as a whole would you not?

Yes. It was an experiement in a way to help the world, it has instead done great harm.

The program was under UN supervision, and not only did they completely fail to spot what Saddam was doing, but they were engaged in the corruption themselves, Kofi Annan's son profitted from it immensly.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg1748.cfm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4131602.stm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html
I wouldn't believe your links either, so I found something nice for you:
http://www.iic-offp.org/story27oct05.htm

If you are asking for a cut and dried answer to a continuum question, you wouldn't understand the answer. About the closest we would get to a clear answer is a nation should be evaluated within the time frame of its present governments, or previous governments if they were of the same party (so we'd evaluate North Korea throughout its entire existance as North Korea because the KWP has been in government all the time, we would evaluate Libya from the time Ghadafi seized power onwards, we would not evaluate Germany based upon the crimes of National Socialists though)

And of course a government in power is not a static object, immovable and unchanging. Ergo, the evaluation has to be updated periodically. So again, I ask you, have the nations emplaced within the HRC improved or worsened during the time period before and after they were elected?


As to the general question of sources, a vast wealth of material showing the crimes of these regimes is in the public domain. The idea of anyone being so ignorant of them as to explicitly ask for sources isn't credible.

A search on "North Korean bioweapons tests on civilians" via google reveals instead, a series of tests by the US with bioweapons in places such as Virginia and New York city using data taken from the Japanese after 1942. It also mentions allegations by China and North Korea of US bioweapon use during the Korean war. Additionally, it also mentioned the first use of bioweapons by the Japanese army during the 2nd World War on Chinese civilians.

North Korea by itself however was mentioned as to having being suspected of violating a 1972 treaty regarding the destruction of bioweapon stockpiles. There are also allegations that North Korea is actively pursuing a bioweapons program. There is no mention however, of North Korea actually testing bioweapons on massed civilians, or their own people for that matter.

Clearly, there is not a wealth of information in public domain as you have stated. Perhaps you were mistaken?

Regarding directly sponsored terrorism, most available sources state that the country has been quiet since 1987, although the accusation of second hand sponsoring by selling missile technology to third parties persists to this day.


A distinction without a difference. One could describe a national government in the same way (with the legislature being the forum).

Then it is a matter of perception then. There is hardly a need to attack one based on their perception so long as it is ultimately still the same thing then is it?


The UN has shown no willingness to investigate itself, let alone actually police itself. In any case, purely internal arrangments of accountability have never been satisfactory, and for an organisation like the UN external accountability is virtually impossible.

No willingness to investigate itself? Perhaps in some cases, but I do believe that the oil for food scandal is being quite thoroughly investigated is it not?

As for internal arrangements not being fully satisfactory, I suppose you mean that it has a possibility of being subverted or otherwise influnced?

And why would external accountability be impossible? So long as the UN relies on the support of other nations, external investigations can and most likely would, affect relations between member nations and the organization does it not?


I take it you only got the sanitised version that the pro-UN media puts out?


Oh no. I did get the version that implicated various parts of the UN, including the Secretary General's (I believe that is thet title of his post?) son. But I would like to point out that such corruption would be impossible without the involvement of third parties such as corporations to help in the movement of funds without becoming immediately apparent. Members of the UN were responsible yes. But let us not be blinded to the fact that they did not act alone, and certainly not without the cooperation of various companies who most likely recieved a percentage as compensation.

It took 3 hands to clap in this sort of arrangement. None of them should get away.


The program was under UN supervision, and not only did they completely fail to spot what Saddam was doing, but they were engaged in the corruption themselves, Kofi Annan's son profitted from it immensly.

Who is under investigation currently and faces a possible prison sentence if charged does he not?

Ultimately, corruption is not limited to a single organization or specific to a single nation. Replacing it with something else might turn out to be worse. Need I point out that of the money gone into reconstructing Iraq, quite a bit remains unaccounted for? A sum that runs into approximately 9 billion USD I believe.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

No, it does not justify corruption in any form, nor will I attempt to. But I will point out that as before, corruption is not limited to a single entity. Removing one simply allows for another system that may be even more corrupt to enter. Thereby, if a wheel is to be replaced, at least ensure that it the replacement is in a working condition first.


Saddam Hussein managed to steal billions from a program under UN, funds which he used to fund his life of luxury, and Palestinian terrorists.

Ah. You should clarify that in the future then. Given the context of the discussion, you seemed to be indicating that the UN itself was building palaces and funding the Palestinian terrorists.


Yes. It was an experiement in a way to help the world, it has instead done great harm.

And what do you suppose would realistically happen in the event of the disolution of the UN?

And of course a government in power is not a static object, immovable and unchanging. Ergo, the evaluation has to be updated periodically. So again, I ask you, have the nations emplaced within the HRC improved or worsened during the time period before and after they were elected?

They've remained fairly static.

North Korea by itself however was mentioned as to having being suspected of violating a 1972 treaty regarding the destruction of bioweapon stockpiles. There are also allegations that North Korea is actively pursuing a bioweapons program. There is no mention however, of North Korea actually testing bioweapons on massed civilians, or their own people for that matter.

Clearly, there is not a wealth of information in public domain as you have stated. Perhaps you were mistaken?

Read:

http://hnn.us/articles/10253.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_North_Korean_human_experimentation

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/13/110824.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1136483,00.html

And why would external accountability be impossible? So long as the UN relies on the support of other nations, external investigations can and most likely would, affect relations between member nations and the organization does it not?

Because UN officials have immunity at the discretion of the Secretary-General.

Who is under investigation currently and faces a possible prison sentence if charged does he not?

Ultimately, corruption is not limited to a single organization or specific to a single nation. Replacing it with something else might turn out to be worse. Need I point out that of the money gone into reconstructing Iraq, quite a bit remains unaccounted for? A sum that runs into approximately 9 billion USD I believe.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/me...30/iraq.audit/

No, it does not justify corruption in any form, nor will I attempt to. But I will point out that as before, corruption is not limited to a single entity. Removing one simply allows for another system that may be even more corrupt to enter. Thereby, if a wheel is to be replaced, at least ensure that it the replacement is in a working condition first.

We're not discussing companies. The argument that the UN is the lesser evil is not compelling, nor is the idea that removing it will necessitate something like it rising in its place.

And what do you suppose would realistically happen in the event of the disolution of the UN?

Nations would relate to each other on a bilateral, or multilateral basis.

They've remained fairly static.

Which at the most indicates that during their tenure there, not much happened.



Read:

http://hnn.us/articles/10253.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_North_Korean_human_experimentation

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/13/110824.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1136483,00.html


Some of the articles are a little strange, some are opinion pieces mixed in with news, but there is enough to indicate that your points have been corrobated. There are a few discrepencies, but they don't overall detract from your argument.


Because UN officials have immunity at the discretion of the Secretary-General.

Automatically granted immunity that can be revoked or immunity granted on selected officials on the discretion of the Secretary General?


We're not discussing companies. The argument that the UN is the lesser evil is not compelling, nor is the idea that removing it will necessitate something like it rising in its place.

We have however, seen a case of removal of UN dealings to be replaced by nationstate level administration. Non-fiscal matters aside, the indicated funds lost or misappropriated seems to be higher than that under UN involvement, thereby giving at least some credence to the idea that an alternative to UN management might be worse.


Nations would relate to each other on a bilateral, or multilateral basis.

Such as is occuring under UN auspices?

Reforming the UN is like reforming a cancer. The best way to reform it is to remove it.

That pretty well sums it up for me.

I tried to read through the whole thread, but my eyes started bleeding about halfway through, so I'll just address the original post.

Personally I'd say that we should do this:
a) Get rid of the Security Council (hereafter "SC"). The veto-rule is bullshit, and misused on about every occasion. I'd much rather make the UN truly democratic, where every country gets a certain amount of votes based on things like Population and willingness to chip in when the UN takes action. Then you simply let a majority rule.

You seriously want to let money influence the UN even more than it already does??

Also, I think the Security Council itself is the body that needs reform, and it should not be done away with.

Currently, a veto is not even needed, if the resolution simply fails to gather enough votes, then it is not enacted.

I would be in favor of having ALL resoultions that come before the SC automatically pass unless they were vetoed. I would then reform the SC to look something like this...

1st Tier - 1 veto (5 total vetos)
US, UK, France, Russia, China
2nd Tier - 1/2 veto (2.5 total vetos)
India, Japan, Brazil, Germany, Pakistan
3rd Tier - 1/4 veto (2.5 total vetos)
Canada, Mexico, Italy, Turkey, Israel, South Africa, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Phillipines, Australia

All of these nations would be permenant members...they are assigned to their tiers for various reasons, including current political issues(Israel to partially offset Pakistan/Saudi/Turkey...Pakistan included to prevent any issue over India etc.), geography, regional influence, and economic importance.

Then simply require 3.75 vetos or more to actually veto a proposal. It would encourage more dialogue and cooperation to defeat proposals that go against national interests, and resoultions that are widley unpopular would easily be defeated by general consensus.

It's not perfect, but it just might work better than what we have right now.

b) Every nation on the planet should set up a regiment or two of peacekeeping and emergency response forces (ie field hospitals etc) which are highly mobile and will then be put directly under UN Command. The individual nation is no longer responsible for these forces, which are still stationed in their home country but essentially foreign forces.
That way the UN can directly and quickly respond to any situation that may come up.

I would love for the UN to do this, and actually have the teeth to enforce binding resolutions, but there are a few problems with the idea as you have described it.

1. Not every nation on the planet can afford to just "give up" a regiment or two, either financially or in terms of manpower.

Every nation that can, should, but there are going to have to be exemptions based on size and population (Bhutan, for instance).

2. I would prefer that the forces not be stationed in their home country. In fact, I would be in favor of requiring that forces from a specific nation may never operate in their home continent.

French troops cannot be used in Albania, Brazilian troops cannot be used in Chile, Pakistani troops cannot be used in Cambodia etc. etc.

This automatically prevents accusations that national interests in regional confrontations are superceding international regulations, and prevents the forces involved from losing objectivity in the dispute.

Which at the most indicates that during their tenure there, not much happened.

No, it indicates that the killing, and torturing was "business as usual".

Are you seriously disputing the appalling human rights records of Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe?

We have however, seen a case of removal of UN dealings to be replaced by nationstate level administration. Non-fiscal matters aside, the indicated funds lost or misappropriated seems to be higher than that under UN involvement, thereby giving at least some credence to the idea that an alternative to UN management might be worse.

The whole program was under UN supervision. There is no credence for the idea that a UN alternative might be worse because that alternative is totally undefined.

Such as is occuring under UN auspices?

No, the UN does much more. Too much more.

What I propose is that nations act by themselves, or in concert with their friends without the overarching bureaucracy that symbolises the UN approach. Something like that occurred in Aceh after the Tsunamis, with Australia and the US going straight in and working together, while the UN officials were still looking for a 5-Star Hotel from which they could "coordinate" the relief effort.

No, it indicates that the killing, and torturing was "business as usual".

Which means that as was mentioned, nothing happened, or perhaps more apt, nothing changed. They did not get worse. They did not get better. The only true area of objection that I can see then is whether they stymied efforts by the HRC. If not, then they simply become deadwood.


Are you seriously disputing the appalling human rights records of Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe?

Hardly. If you think I am, you are sorely mistaken.


The whole program was under UN supervision. There is no credence for the idea that a UN alternative might be worse because that alternative is totally undefined.

The US reconstruction of Iraq is not entirely under US supervision?

The US reconstruction of Iraq is not entirely under US supervision?

What are you talking about. The UN's Oil-for-Food program was under UN supervision.

What are you talking about. The UN's Oil-for-Food program was under UN supervision.

I do not dispute the fact that the Oil For Food program was run by the UN.

I speak of the US Iraqi reconstruction which uses a similar concept of using Iraqi oil to pay for the bill. The same concept which I might add, resulted in 9 billion USD disappearing.

Not germane to a discussion of the UN's corruption.

Any links about the disappearance?

Not germane to a discussion of the UN's corruption.

Any links about the disappearance?

I had posted it earlier. Perhaps you missed it?

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

As for it not being related to the UNs corruption, I spoke of the effect that having another take it's place so far as money is concerned could be very well worse. History has proven me correct in this aspect.

Unfortunalty Some nations cant even provide one Battalion(Regiment) at full strength.

I say do as New Zealand first suggested back in the day when the UN was first created no Veto rights.

VETO is a way for the pussy arsed Super Powers to keep their thumbs over everyone.

No!!!

VETO is a way for the pussy arsed Super Powers to keep their thumbs over everyone.
So true, but I must say that not every member with veto powers is a "super power." I would propose that the ability to veto mainly is handeled by former powers to convince themselves that they still are "super."

No veto is good in my opinion.

VETO is a way for the pussy arsed Super Powers to keep their thumbs over everyone.
Quoted just because it's so damn true. Remind me again, which nation is it that keeps veto'ing stuff?

I'd like to see a stronger UN. Actually, I'd like to see a UN where one could use strength in the same sentence without laughing.

I'd also like to see the nations that doesn't pay up be kicked off the various councils.

I'd love to see a UN-based military force. It doesn't matter which nation can provide what. Contributions can be decided based on a combination of GDI & population.

I'd like to see the security council abolished.

I'd like to see a democratic UN.

I'd like to see clauses forcing members of the UN to recognise & abide by international law, and to be forced to have smaller militaries than the UN has at it's disposal.

As for it not being related to the UNs corruption, I spoke of the effect that having another take it's place so far as money is concerned could be very well worse. History has proven me correct in this aspect.

Nevertheless, it provides no support for the idea that the UN should be kept.

In any case, your link doesn't talk about corruption, and bribery, it talks about inefficiency and bad management. The UN is clearly corrupt.

I'd like to see a stronger UN. Actually, I'd like to see a UN where one could use strength in the same sentence without laughing.

How, in the light of the UN's corruption, can you justify that?

I'd love to see a UN-based military force. It doesn't matter which nation can provide what. Contributions can be decided based on a combination of GDI & population.

In other words, you want an army without loyalty to a people, and you want the UN to be able to levy taxes.

How can you justify giving the UN another source of independent revenue, when the previous source (Iraqi oil) was used in such a corrupt manner?

I'd like to see the security council abolished.

So you want no effective check on the Secretariat, or the shower of dictatorhips that dominate the General Assembly? Can you justify that when they spend their time passing anti-semitic resolutions?


Why don't you just say you want a world government with unlimited powers?

Nevertheless, it provides no support for the idea that the UN should be kept.

Fair enough.


In any case, your link doesn't talk about corruption, and bribery, it talks about inefficiency and bad management. The UN is clearly corrupt.


Inefficiency and bad management that resulted in money quite clearly disappearing. How much is bad management and how much is walking away very rich and calling it bad management? Greater investigation into the matter will reveal that I believe.

Inefficiency and bad management that resulted in money quite clearly disappearing. How much is bad management and how much is walking away very rich and calling it bad management? Greater investigation into the matter will reveal that I believe.

There's a difference between money disappearing, and corruption, and while you may well believe what you believe, it has no real basis without proof.

There's another point to consider, this disappearance was found out and is being investigated quite quickly. Oil-for-Food went on for about a decade, and is only just being investigated. Already we see that national governments simply do it better. Also, the amounts are much less for the US disappearances.