NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4810538.stm

New members will now need to be elected by the entire General Assembly with an absolute majority, all nations are eligible to join, all members will be reviewed, with anyone violating human rights probably being thrown out of the Council.

The Americans wanted it to go further, with a smaller, more select group, elected with a larger majority. But the only ones voting against the plan were the US, Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands, with three abstaining.

Thoughts?

Well, now we all know who the greatest obstacle to peace and human rights is: The Marshall Islands!

Seriously, it's good they're trying to make the process more rigorous, although like everything else the UN has been doing I can't say I'm confident there won't be a hitch.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *Deep Breath* hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Y'know, that pretty much eliminates almost every single country in the world. My question is who will be doing the reviewing? In all seriousness, a council made up of countries who can only get an absolute mjority is quite frightening, long term.

Y'know, that pretty much eliminates almost every single country in the world.
:confused:

My question is who will be doing the reviewing?
That is a good question, to which I hope we can find an answer. I'm thinking it will probably be the other members of the Human Rights Council.

In all seriousness, a council made up of countries who can only get an absolute majority is quite frightening, long term.
As I said, the US wanted a two-third majority, which is even more.

But the only ones voting against the plan were the US, Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands, with three abstaining.

Thoughts?

first thought - looks like palau and the marshall islands aren't quite as independent as is claimed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4810538.stm

New members will now need to be elected by the entire General Assembly with an absolute majority, all nations are eligible to join, all members will be reviewed, with anyone violating human rights probably being thrown out of the Council.

The Americans wanted it to go further, with a smaller, more select group, elected with a larger majority. But the only ones voting against the plan were the US, Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands, with three abstaining.

Thoughts?

My thoughts. Who the hell needs the UN? My answer. No one.

My thoughts. Who the hell needs the UN? My answer. No one.
Your justification?

I don't see what you and Ravenshrike get so aggressive about. The UN had a human rights body. That didn't function very well and was constantly being criticised.

So they got rid of it and started a new one. What's the problem?

Your justification?
Their stellar performances in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Dafur, etc? All it is, at best is a Pro-Forma body to rubber-stamp the decisions of it's more powerfull members.

Your justification?

I don't see what you and Ravenshrike get so aggressive about. The UN had a human rights body. That didn't function very well and was constantly being criticised.

So they got rid of it and started a new one. What's the problem?
Their problem is apparently they feel that although we f*ck with everyone ELSE'S business, no one else is allowed to be an authority that we have to deal with. Pretty common for people who *bafflingly* believe that corporations should be able to do any damn thing they please without some kind of restrictions.

Their stellar performances in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Dafur, etc? All it is, at best is a Pro-Forma body to rubber-stamp the decisions of it's more powerfull members.
But ultimately that is just a matter of those more powerful members taking advantage of it. I would be completely in favour of a reform, but the problem is that particularly the US in the past six years has shown a remarkable willingness to block good ideas.

Even though the execution has its troubles, the idea itself is a good one.

But ultimately that is just a matter of those more powerful members taking advantage of it. I would be completely in favour of a reform, but the problem is that particularly the US in the past six years has shown a remarkable willingness to block good ideas.

Even though the execution has its troubles, the idea itself is a good one.
The UN is fundamentally flawed:
1. While the is a measure for compliance, it is impossible to implement without the support of the Security Council.
2. Nations can pay lip service to compliance (Ex: the issue of modern slavery).
3. Politics often comes before ideology.
4. No recognition or means of representation for important NGO's.
5. No respect for minority positions of non Security Council members.

In effect the world-body looks away or makes feeble protests anytime one of it's more powerful nations decides to peruse policy, and ignores crimes in regions that are not politically popular.

Reform is impossible, as nations really would not want to have to follow everything their neighbors would vote for, or worse have to recognize the position of NGO's.

My thoughts. Who the hell needs the UN? My answer. No one.Go to one of the Pakistani villages suffering from the aftermath of that earthquake and tell them that.
Go to the Cypriots and tell them that.
Go to one of the areas in Indonesia that was hit by the Tsunami and tell them that.
Go to the Sudanese refugees that fled to UN refugee camps from Darfur and tell them that.
...

Reform is impossible...
Strong words.

So what's the alternative?
Taking away the UN is not going to work. In the third world, it'll be seen as a US plot to remove that which hinders its quest for world domination, and alternatives will not be accepted.
No organisation at all will leave us with a multitude of multilateral agreements, none of which have any more in mind than the interests of the signatories. It wouldn't be an improvement, and it might well result in some truly global issues to fall by the wayside completely.
Not to forget that the UN has made progress in areas like the recognition of human rights, their definitions and the fact that you can't commit genocide or war crimes with no one watching. Rwanda was a public issue at the time, even if member states were unwilling to do something about it. Without the UN, people wouldn't even have noticed, and the war would still be going there today.
That, and the small matter of the enormous humanitarian work the UN does of course.

Go to one of the Pakistani villages suffering from the aftermath of that earthquake and tell them that.
Go to the Cypriots and tell them that.
Go to one of the areas in Indonesia that was hit by the Tsunami and tell them that.
Go to the Sudanese refugees that fled to UN refugee camps from Darfur and tell them that.
...
They probably won't anyway, that's the beauty of the anonymity of the net. As another CURRENT thread so succintly put it, people who don't really make much difference in the world can make it seem like they do, and someone won't take a nail-laden bat to them quite so easily to resolve differences of opinion.

Strong words.

So what's the alternative?
None really, the bureaucracy almost never shrinks.
Taking away the UN is not going to work. In the third world, it'll be seen as a US plot to remove that which hinders its quest for world domination, and alternatives will not be accepted.
I really doubt they have much faith in the UN to begin with, Peacekeepers are universally despised during long deployments.
No organisation at all will leave us with a multitude of multilateral agreements, none of which have any more in mind than the interests of the signatories. It wouldn't be an improvement, and it might well result in some truly global issues to fall by the wayside completely.
Such as?
Not to forget that the UN has made progress in areas like the recognition of human rights, their definitions and the fact that you can't commit genocide or war crimes with no one watching. Rwanda was a public issue at the time, even if member states were unwilling to do something about it. Without the UN, people wouldn't even have noticed, and the war would still be going there today.
Not really, the genocide continued despite the presence of UN troops, even when French troops where several months later, genocides continued even in areas where French soldiers where stationed. The Genocide ended when Tutsi rebels defeated the Hutu regime, one hundred days after the genocide started.

And while the UN has passed a bunch of good human rights resolutions, member-states can and do ignore inconvient sections of them.
That, and the small matter of the enormous humanitarian work the UN does of course.
Aids for everyone!
[Linda Shenwick] said the U.N. itself doesn't want to identify and change the way it does business. This behavior was encouraged by the Clinton Administration. As early as 1995, the administration knew that U.N. troops being sent into Africa and Asia as peacekeepers were spreading AIDS. "They did nothing to deal with that problem," she said. "They only recognized and began talking about the problem one year ago" in early 2000. She said that when then-U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright briefed her senior team at the mission about the problem, Albright told them, "Don't go out of the room with this."
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A1028_0_2_0_C/
Politics even takes precedence to humanitarian aid.

All the aid distributed comes from member states, most of whom give aid in addition to what the UN sends. Without the burden of UN fees (much of which is eaten by the bureaucracy, or in some cases kleptocracy), member states can give more in aid. Alternatively a new body that does only charity could be formed.

first thought - looks like palau and the marshall islands aren't quite as independent as is claimed.That's because these two islands used to be American's squeaky little puppet nations, or US territories to be exact.

My thoughts. Who the hell needs the UN? My answer. No one.
i dissagree,if the body functioned as it should...the world may be a better place.
that said...no one is telling me how to live..cause i am a bit crazy...lol...i think we should can the un and cut off all foriegn aid...let everyone sink or swim on their own...callous..yea...but everyone hates us anyway.

and i certainly dont want some beret wearing euro telling me i got to walk lockstep with them..not to mention the whole gun thing..i like my guns..me a redneck..lol
seriously though...we have different ideals then most euros....i like freedom..i dont need a nanny.

go placate yourselves with welfare and pc crap..aint buying it here..i like my freedom...screw the democraps...they never get that..leave me alone..and we will get along swimmingly...but no..you just know better...puhlease.

I really doubt they have much faith in the UN to begin with, Peacekeepers are universally despised during long deployments.
You're aware though that most peacekeeping is never reported in our media, because it's countries like India or Bangladesh who're doing it. And to be honest, I don't think despised is a word you can use for a generalisation like this. To those who are fleeing, Blue Helmets are often the only people they can run to. All the more terrible that there have been incidents where this trust was misplaced.

Such as?
I know you're expecting me to talk to you about global warming. But I won't.

Instead, I'll talk about globalisation: The main power a government holds is over economic performance. Governments are appointed and rejected on economic grounds, it's an issue that affects every person's life.
But today, economic policies are becoming more and more worthless. Firms simply move their production, their HQs, their R&D and so on anywhere on earth. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but it does mean that basic regulations will require a global framework to be effective. And the UN or an UN-like organisation is the only thing with that kind of reach.

Not really, the genocide continued despite the presence of UN troops, even when French troops where several months later, genocides continued even in areas where French soldiers where stationed. The Genocide ended when Tutsi rebels defeated the Hutu regime, one hundred days after the genocide started.
I stand somewhat corrected. At any rate, the UN is part of a movement, and certainly a strengthening factor in it, that makes people care that it even happened. Without the UN and its work, not only would we not discuss the genocide, we'd probably never even have heard of it.

And while the UN has passed a bunch of good human rights resolutions, member-states can and do ignore inconvient sections of them.
Exactly. Which is where some good suggestions for reform or alternative actions might be in order.

Aids for everyone!
Sorta beside the point, don't you think?

And I love how an organisation dares to call itself "accuracy in the media", when its people have webpages like this (http://www.confrontingiraq.net/), or this (http://www.usasurvival.org/).

All the aid distributed comes from member states, most of whom give aid in addition to what the UN sends. Without the burden of UN fees (much of which is eaten by the bureaucracy, or in some cases kleptocracy), member states can give more in aid. Alternatively a new body that does only charity could be formed.
The UN also sets aid targets member states are supposed to reach in % of GDP. No one but Denmark cares.
Don't tell me the tiny amount of money that actually is being spent on upkeep could do anything to affect a situation like the one today.

And you tell me the UN doesn't do anything for the people in Darfur. What the hell do you suppose this (http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/chad?page=camps) is?

seriously though...we have different ideals then most euros....i like freedom..i dont need a nanny.
European nations make up about 20.9% of member states. Most of these are in Eastern Europe, and are everything but nanny states.

So why do you think Western European "Nanny States" have anything at all to do with the UN? Where is this coming from?

Peacekeepers are universally despised during long deployments.

Nice sweeping generalisation :rolleyes:

Not by the Lebanese, not by the East Timorese, not by the Namibs, not by all the Haitians, not by the Cypriots, not by the Congolese and so on and so forth.

I'm really sure that the Fijians, Canadians, Irish and Bangledeshi Blue Helmets are absolutley despised.

It's good to see that the reform of the UN is getting under way. There are too many things wrong with it as it is.

My thoughts. Who the hell needs the UN? My answer. No one.
It's easy to say that when your country is a superpower. Small countries need the UN.

I don't see what you and Ravenshrike get so aggressive about.
Their right-wing brainwashing tells them to spasmodically rant at the mention of the UN.

The UN is desperately in need of reform, but I fear it is too late. The Americans, under Bush, have tried to turn the world from the flawed egalitarian notion of concensus politics into an uni-polar world, but there can not be a Pax-American as there was a Pax-Britania or the first Pax-Romana because dispite their overwhelming strength they are not strong enough to force the hands of all the nations of the world, the result is a slow shift towards a rebirth of the "balance of power". The Balance, when it works, prevents genocidal wars, but not genocidal governments, and when it fails it produces apocliptic wars (Napoleonic, WW1 and WW2, Korea, Congo)

Your justification?

I don't see what you and Ravenshrike get so aggressive about. The UN had a human rights body. That didn't function very well and was constantly being criticised.

So they got rid of it and started a new one. What's the problem?
Oh, I don't know, maybe that it has only an absolute majority requirement. Mob Rule on grand scales has NEVER ended well in history with regards to people alone. Somehow I doubt mob rule by country will work any better.

That's because these two islands used to be American's squeaky little puppet nations, or US territories to be exact.

exactly my point - but one wonders if they voted that way independently to try to impress the u.s., or if the u.s. applied a bit of pressure somehow.

Instead, I'll talk about globalisation: The main power a government holds is over economic performance. Governments are appointed and rejected on economic grounds, it's an issue that affects every person's life.
But today, economic policies are becoming more and more worthless. Firms simply move their production, their HQs, their R&D and so on anywhere on earth. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but it does mean that basic regulations will require a global framework to be effective. And the UN or an UN-like organisation is the only thing with that kind of reach.
What effective measures has the UN done about globalization?

I stand somewhat corrected. At any rate, the UN is part of a movement, and certainly a strengthening factor in it, that makes people care that it even happened. Without the UN and its work, not only would we not discuss the genocide, we'd probably never even have heard of it.
The information of the genocide was certainly going into the UN, though there was little talk (let alone action) until reports started filtering out to the media (the traditional gatherer of information).

Nice sweeping generalisation :rolleyes:

Not by the Lebanese, not by the East Timorese, not by the Namibs, not by all the Haitians, not by the Cypriots, not by the Congolese and so on and so forth.

I'm really sure that the Fijians, Canadians, Irish and Bangledeshi Blue Helmets are absolutley despised.

Anti-U.N. riots leave Ivory Coast mission on edge
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L02173203.htm

The six were sent as part of a UN force meant to protect civilians.

Instead it is alleged that the peacekeepers sexually abused Congolese children.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4262743.stm

UN accused as gunfire erupts during Haiti election protests
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/02/13/haiti-violence-060213.html

Sex, avarice and corruption among some officers in the United Nations police forces in Bosnia was revealed in a Washington Post article Monday. ...
http://www.ce-review.org/01/20/bosnianews20.html

Congo army soldiers mutiny, ransack U.N. camp -U.N.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L20387450.htm

United Nations peacekeepers in Liberia used teargas to disperse a demonstration on Wednesday by parents and pupils who want their primary school in the capital reopened.

Hundreds of demonstrators, including schoolchildren in uniform, disrupted traffic to protest the closure of the Early Learning Foundation School, which has not opened its doors since the new term started on October 5.

UN troops clad in riot gear lobbed tear gas into the crowd after local youths joined the initially peaceful protest.
http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__africa&articleid=139977
[Plenty more.]

Such actions do not endure.
The UN also sets aid targets member states are supposed to reach in % of GDP. No one but Denmark cares.
Don't tell me the tiny amount of money that actually is being spent on upkeep could do anything to affect a situation like the one today.
The UN regular Budget and the Peacekeeping Operations Budget are funded by assessed contributions to all UN member states. The UN Specialized Agencies are partly funded through assessed contributions and partly through voluntary contributions. The UN Programmes and Funds are generally funded solely with voluntary contributions.

Memeber states only contribute a small portion of assessed funds.
And you tell me the UN doesn't do anything for the people in Darfur. What the hell do you suppose this (http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/chad?page=camps) is?
The Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement are butchering civilians and the UN is handing out bandaids. :rolleyes:

Their stellar performances in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Dafur, etc? All it is, at best is a Pro-Forma body to rubber-stamp the decisions of it's more powerfull members.
You should ask the US, Russia, France, China ad Great Britain to get their shit together then. The UN does quite a lot not directly related to the SC.

Oh, I don't know, maybe that it has only an absolute majority requirement. Mob Rule on grand scales has NEVER ended well in history with regards to people alone. Somehow I doubt mob rule by country will work any better.
You know what "Absolute Majority" is, right? And that the US wanted an even greater majority to be necessary for countries to get into this new council?

What effective measures has the UN done about globalization?
I didn't say that they are doing it, I'm saying that they are the only organisation that could.

Anti-U.N. riots leave Ivory Coast mission on edge
...
Such actions do not endure.
Notice though how these are ultimately isolated incidents, pretty much always concerning Western forces, which have an image problem in the world anyways, and which often find themselves in very hostile situations. I don't think you can blame troops that are sent into what is essentially a war zone for breaking up a protest with tear gas.
But anyways, I don't think such problems are common for Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or all the other troops which make up the largest part of UN Peacekeeping operations.

Memeber states only contribute a small portion of assessed funds.
:confused:
One way or another, member states foot the bill. The UN can't print money, and as of yet, there is no world tax either.
You would have to argue the point that somehow these bills are so huge that it would make for a serious improvement to the amount of aid that goes out if the UN no longer existed.

The Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement are butchering civilians and the UN is handing out bandaids. :rolleyes:
I think you might misunderstand the whole thing:

The UN does not have any power to do anything, unless its members do. "The UN" is not even an independent entity, in a realistic sense. "The UN" can't stop a civil war, unless member states commit themselves.
Annan and his dudes can't do anymore than ask the US and Europe to send troops to Darfur to support the failing AU Troops. If they don't want to, because they're overstretched somewhere else, or because they don't have the political will, then the UN can't make anything happen.

So they do that for which you don't need a whole lot of power and political weight, and that is to help those that need help immediately, as best they can.

The UN does not have any power to do anything, unless its members do. "The UN" is not even an independent entity, in a realistic sense. "The UN" can't stop a civil war, unless member states commit themselves.
Annan and his dudes can't do anymore than ask the US and Europe to send troops to Darfur to support the failing AU Troops. If they don't want to, because they're overstretched somewhere else, or because they don't have the political will, then the UN can't make anything happen.

So they do that for which you don't need a whole lot of power and political weight, and that is to help those that need help immediately, as best they can.
Then they really do not have much more ability than the International Red Cross. Pretty much any country in Europe, the US, or Asia could stop the genocide but they choose not to, and as a result the UN has no real will, let alone ability to.

What really is the point of the UN, aside from form?

What really is the point of the UN, aside from form?
It serves to give some legitimacy to international policy decisions, it provides a forum and framework in which all nations can be heard, and it potentially forms the basis for a more meaningful international organisation.

It serves to give some legitimacy to international policy decisions, it provides a forum and framework in which all nations can be heard, and it potentially forms the basis for a more meaningful international organisation.
But it will never be meaningful, due in no small part to the failings I have pointed out, and most of the powerful member-states do not want it to have any real power.