NationStates Jolt Archive

Right, here's one for you:

What should be the role of the U.N. in today's world?

Should it evolve into a Federal Earth, stay as it is now, or slowly diminish and go the way of the League of Nations?

I would hope the UN eventually evolves into a United Earth, but I realise how unrealistic this is. I'm concerned it may slimply fizzle out of existance, as it find itself unable to stop Human Rights abuses in China and stop wars America wants to go fight.

In my opinion, the problem is it can do nothing to interfere with a Nation's indivisual laws, only advise and do its best to make life hard for Nations that don't play by Kofi's rules.

Discuss.

What the UN should do is become a united earth government, taking power by force, and installing me as enlightened dictator of the universe.

That's right, the universe. We all know it belongs to us anyway.

The problem with the UN is that they are too wimpy to actually do anything against anyone. Nations just pick and choose what bits they will follow and then know that the worst the UN can do is give them a slap on the wrist. The UN needs to get some real power behind it and start to actually make nations do things. In the case of the Bush Adminastration. They don't care what the UN thinks.
Bush: Hey, can we go to war on Iraq?
UN: NO
Bush: Too bad we will do it anyway.

So yes, the UN should eventually rule the earth, but allow nations to rule themselves on small internal affairs etc. As soon as (or if) life in space is discovered then I think people will decide to become the Human race rather than 100 different races.

The problem with the UN is that they are too wimpy to actually do anything against anyone. Nations just pick and choose what bits they will follow and then know that the worst the UN can do is give them a slap on the wrist. The UN needs to get some real power behind it and start to actually make nations do things. In the case of the Bush Adminastration. They don't care what the UN thinks.
Bush: Hey, can we go to war on Iraq?
UN: NO
Bush: Too bad we will do it anyway.

What would you think about the UN having a Large Military Force behind it?

Right now they have the Blue Berrets, but its not enough to actually STOP a war, only help the victims.

The domination of its effective functions (that is, beyond GA rhetoric) by the major superpowers is troublesome, and unfortunately seems inevitable even if the political organization becomes less elitist.

The idea that a nation like India, with almost a billion people, deserves the same number of votes as Monaco, with 36,000, is clearly absurd.

It seems better than the alternative of "none," and as a check to the power of individual states it should be supported, but far worse than any number of alternatives (a democratic global parliament being one). Unfortunately, most of the better alternatives seem rather unfeasible at this point.

What would you think about the UN having a Large Military Force behind it?

Right now they have the Blue Berrets, but its not enough to actually STOP a war, only help the victims.


Yes I would very much like to see the UN actually have someone to enforce what they do. Unless of course it ends up being the UN enforcing what U.S wants...

Right, here's one for you:

What should be the role of the U.N. in today's world?

Should it evolve into a Federal Earth, stay as it is now, or slowly diminish and go the way of the League of Nations?

I would hope the UN eventually evolves into a United Earth, but I realise how unrealistic this is. I'm concerned it may slimply fizzle out of existance, as it find itself unable to stop Human Rights abuses in China and stop wars America wants to go fight.

In my opinion, the problem is it can do nothing to interfere with a Nation's indivisual laws, only advise and do its best to make life hard for Nations that don't play by Kofi's rules.

Discuss.

Ahh yes, the United Nations. First, let me establish that it is truly an organization that is necessary in a world where there is so much that is preventable and correctable, but terrible--wars, diseases, genocide, etc. However, it is also an organization that needs to be...revamped. In today's world, we need an organization that carries more clout than the United Nations is currently allowed. Its efforts, for example, in Africa, are admirable but too little, and with no feasible way of increasing its capability. I don't know how changes would be made, but it is certainly an idea to consider that the UN needs to be restructured so that it is capable of actually getting something done rather than being hindered by nations who do not want to face the fact that THEY NEED HELP. When we have situations like Darfur, and other organizations want an "African solution to an African problem," etc., and simply let, in all their bickering, the senseless slaughter of innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands, the world needs an organization that has the financial backing, military clout and political strength to step in and say: "This needs to stop." And actually mean it.

Yes I would very much like to see the UN actually have someone to enforce what they do. Unless of course it ends up being the UN enforcing what U.S wants...

That said, the US wont have its amazing bartering power for much longer.

snip.

But that would annoy his Majesty George Bush. A strong UN would encroach on the rights of indivisual nations. Which I am not against, but alot of Right Wingers prolly would be.

The domination of its effective functions (that is, beyond GA rhetoric) by the major superpowers is troublesome, and unfortunately seems inevitable even if the political organization becomes less elitist.

The idea that a nation like India, with almost a billion people, deserves the same number of votes as Monaco, with 36,000, is clearly absurd.

It seems better than the alternative of "none," and as a check to the power of individual states it should be supported, but far worse than any number of alternatives (a democratic global parliament being one). Unfortunately, most of the better alternatives seem rather unfeasible at this point.

Actually, this is one of the better aspects of the UN today. One nation = One vote. What really needs to be addressed is the fact that, for instance, on the REVISED Human Rights Council, six nations known for civil rights abuses were voted as members. Clearly, this is something that does not add up right.

Right, here's one for you:

What should be the role of the U.N. in today's world?

Should it evolve into a Federal Earth, stay as it is now, or slowly diminish and go the way of the League of Nations?

I would hope the UN eventually evolves into a United Earth, but I realise how unrealistic this is. I'm concerned it may slimply fizzle out of existance, as it find itself unable to stop Human Rights abuses in China and stop wars America wants to go fight.

In my opinion, the problem is it can do nothing to interfere with a Nation's indivisual laws, only advise and do its best to make life hard for Nations that don't play by Kofi's rules.

Discuss.

The UN needs to get its own army, so it can effectively enforce its own resolution...problem is no one is really willing to give it an army [really, as in really really want]

That said, the US wont have its amazing bartering power for much longer.

O really? Im confuddled explain to me please!

O really? Im confuddled explain to me please!

I meant the way the USA is loosing its posistion as the only superpower.

But that would annoy his Majesty George Bush. A strong UN would encroach on the rights of indivisual nations. Which I am not against, but alot of Right Wingers prolly would be.

Well, whatever concerns the right wingers (and I'm one of them) have against a strong United Nations would hopefully be alleviated if it were taken into account that 1) it would be regulated only to extreme circumstances of egregious abuses of power (presumably, that is, and assuming that most nations are level-headed and willing to vote reasonably) and 2) it would have the right to step in before a major crisis. If the UN had had the capability to override Saddam's objections to weapons inspections and enter the nation, with the backing of a large proportion (majority) of the nations of the UN, then the weapons would have either been found and eliminated, and Saddam put on trial or found that the weapons were unsubstantiated. This would, ideally, prevent an Iraq invasion such as that which was witnessed in 2003.

What would you think about the UN having a Large Military Force behind it?

Right now they have the Blue Berrets, but its not enough to actually STOP a war, only help the victims.
The problem is, the UN depends on the (rather slim) goodwill of its richer members. For the UN to have a large military force, the funds would have to come from somewhere.

Poor countries wouldn't have the money to contribute much. Richer countries, like european states, USA, Russia, Japan, etc. would much rather fund their own military machine and retain control over it. Especially the USA, since they want to keep their title of dominant military power for as long as possible. So they're certainly not going to send money the UN's way to fund their competition...

So, this really has zero chance of happening in reality. The sad thruth is that the UN will keep sending soldiers only in the wars that interests the richer countries, and keep disregarding bloody conflicts when those don't threathen the comfort of the north.

I meant the way the USA is loosing its posistion as the only superpower.

True, but then again, perhaps not. The US still possesses an enormous economy and flouts the most military in the world--its influence as a superpower will probably remain uncontested many years into the future. Nations like China and India, while on the rise, still have a lot of catching up to do...they are undoubtedly becoming (and are already) major world powers, but the US status as superpower is pretty solid, and will continue to be so.

When we have situations like Darfur, and other organizations want an "African solution to an African problem," etc., and simply let, in all their bickering, the senseless slaughter of innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands, the world needs an organization that has the financial backing, military clout and political strength to step in and say: "This needs to stop." And actually mean it.

It's easy to say "this needs to stop" - everybody sane and with moral decency agrees that it should stop. But who should stop it? The UN? And if the UN does intervene, who will supply the money and the forces? Well, the US, of course, and the EU. And their record in intervening in other countries' affairs is so great? Who is to say they won't use the situation as an excuse to advance their own interest, at the expense of the people of Sudan? Even if their motives are benevolent, who is to say that they will be competent enough to solve anything? Genocide doesn't come out of nowhere, it has reasons, and military intervention that fails to address those reasons will ultimately solve nothing, and quite possibly will make things worse.

And once we give institutions the power to make those kinds of interventions, who is to say that they won't abuse it? The UN isn't exactly the most democratic body, and in military interventions it is even less so, because it needs someone to provide the troops and the money, and the more powerful and richer countries naturally have an advantage in doing so, irrespective of the wishes of the majority of the world's population.

The United Nations of our times has proven to be immensely corrupt. Example:the Oil for Food program in Iraq where Saddam raked in millions while his people suffered around him. The UN is good in theory, but our modern UN needs a major overhaul. I would hate to see a one-world government emerge from this current UN.

Right, here's one for you:

What should be the role of the U.N. in today's world?

Should it evolve into a Federal Earth, stay as it is now, or slowly diminish and go the way of the League of Nations?

I would hope the UN eventually evolves into a United Earth, but I realise how unrealistic this is. I'm concerned it may slimply fizzle out of existance, as it find itself unable to stop Human Rights abuses in China and stop wars America wants to go fight.

In my opinion, the problem is it can do nothing to interfere with a Nation's indivisual laws, only advise and do its best to make life hard for Nations that don't play by Kofi's rules.

Discuss.

Federal Earth? Anyone who supports that? Why? Do we have to be a 1 "country" to avoid wars? No f****** way. All we gotta do is to learn to deal with our differences in a civilized manner, NOT try to erease those differences...
UN should be a regulating body that deals with global issues, like Global Warming, Human Rights, etc....

The problem is, the UN depends on the (rather slim) goodwill of its richer members. For the UN to have a large military force, the funds would have to come from somewhere.

Poor countries wouldn't have the money to contribute much. Richer countries, like european states, USA, Russia, Japan, etc. would much rather fund their own military machine and retain control over it. Especially the USA, since they want to keep their title of dominant military power for as long as possible. So they're certainly not going to send money the UN's way to fund their competition...

So, this really has zero chance of happening in reality. The sad thruth is that the UN will keep sending soldiers only in the wars that interests the richer countries, and keep disregarding bloody conflicts when those don't threathen the comfort of the north.

Very true. A little disheartening, perhaps, but true nonetheless.

It's easy to say "this needs to stop" - everybody sane and with moral decency agrees that it should stop. But who should stop it? The UN? And if the UN does intervene, who will supply the money and the forces? Well, the US, of course, and the EU. And their record in intervening in other countries' affairs is so great? Who is to say they won't use the situation as an excuse to advance their own interest, at the expense of the people of Sudan? Even if their motives are benevolent, who is to say that they will be competent enough to solve anything? Genocide doesn't come out of nowhere, it has reasons, and military intervention that fails to address those reasons will ultimately solve nothing, and quite possibly will make things worse.

And once we give institutions the power to make those kinds of interventions, who is to say that they won't abuse it? The UN isn't exactly the most democratic body, and in military interventions it is even less so, because it needs someone to provide the troops and the money, and the more powerful and richer countries naturally have an advantage in doing so, irrespective of the wishes of the majority of the world's population.

I don't disagree with you here. But if the UN were to be changed--remember, we're talking idealistically here--it would need to be in such a way that it was able to act in the interest of mankind. Hence, the one nation = one vote idea. But, yes, realistically, there is an enormous amount of politicking that goes on behind the scenes that would, and do, hinder the effectiveness of bodies such as the UN.

The United Nations of our times has proven to be immensely corrupt. Example:the Oil for Food program in Iraq where Saddam raked in millions while his people suffered around him. The UN is good in theory, but our modern UN needs a major overhaul. I would hate to see a one-world government emerge from this current UN.

Exactly. Theory is the realm in which everything works perfectly--communism is the best government, the rate of a falling object is always 9.81 m/s, etc.--but unfortunately, theory does not always work in the real world. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a world government that is similar in foundation to the UN today, but the actual chances of such an organization that is capable of actually doing what it is meant to do are, quite frankly, zero.

True, but then again, perhaps not. The US still possesses an enormous economy and flouts the most military in the world--its influence as a superpower will probably remain uncontested many years into the future. Nations like China and India, while on the rise, still have a lot of catching up to do...they are undoubtedly becoming (and are already) major world powers, but the US status as superpower is pretty solid, and will continue to be so.
Not as much as you might think. The US colossus has clay feet.

Your national debt has grown in humongous proportions to fund your military machine. Most of that debt is now in the hands of foreign banks, notably the chinese banks. If there comes a day when those banks decide to trade in their US currencies and ask to be reimbursed all at once, the US economy will stumble and fall in a matter or weeks. 1929 would look like a mere hiccup in comparison.

Then, we'd see just just how long the USA can maintain its fleet of aircraft carriers without money to pay its soldiers and the maintenance of it's vehicles.

Personally I think the world will move towards unification, slowly though, but still. And I don't think it will emerge from the UN. I rather think the increasing free economic zones like the EU, African league, Indo-China collaboration will soon divide the world in around 5-6 zones that eventually will merge. Maybe the US and EU will lead the way by beeing the first to join together, or maybe the historical ties and proximity to Africa will see the EU merging in that direction, but I do believe it will be the EU and maybe to some extent China that leads the way.

Federal Earth? Anyone who supports that? Why? Do we have to be a 1 "country" to avoid wars? No f****** way. All we gotta do is to learn to deal with our differences in a civilized manner, NOT try to erease those differences...
UN should be a regulating body that deals with global issues, like Global Warming, Human Rights, etc....

A Federal Earth would make the Human Race progress alot faster, if all discoveries were to be made known to all corners of the world.

But I'm not as niave to beleive it would result in world peace, just a faster progress.

Federal Earth? Anyone who supports that?

Me. With the reservation that global socialist anarchism would be better, but I digress.

Why? Do we have to be a 1 "country" to avoid wars? No f****** way.

War isn't my primary concern, if we're still in a situation where nations are regularly warring against one another there will not be a global government. Today most wars are intranational rather than international, which is one reason increased global government may be feasible.

Perhaps the most important reason for me is the regulation of the global economy. Right now, to the extent that regulation exists, it is insufficient and dominated by the rich nations. With the variety of ways in which the global economy restricts the capability of individual states to regulate the economy, a global institution capable of effectively doing so on a democratic basis should be created. Such a framework would also aid in restraining economic nationalism.

Not as much as you might think. The US colossus has clay feet.

Your national debt has grown in humongous proportions to fund your military machine. Most of that debt is now in the hands of foreign banks, notably the chinese banks. If there comes a day when those banks decide to trade in their US currencies and ask to be reimbursed all at once, the US economy will stumble and fall in a matter or weeks. 1929 would look like a mere hiccup in comparison.

Then, we'd see just just how long the USA can maintain its fleet of aircraft carriers without money to pay its soldiers and the maintenance of it's vehicles.

My friend, international economics are slightly more complicated than Chinese bankers foreclosing on loans to America. While do not profess to understand everything in this regard (in fact I don't understand most of it :) ) the idea of a humongous foreclosure is, quite simply, absurd. If that happened (which, what would be the incentive?) you must also remember that China's largest trading partner is with the US. Its a two way street, and plenty of American firms have more than a little vested interest (I also mean that in monetary terms :) ) in the Chinese economy.

Personally I think the world will move towards unification, slowly though, but still. And I don't think it will emerge from the UN. I rather think the increasing free economic zones like the EU, African league, Indo-China collaboration will soon divide the world in around 5-6 zones that eventually will merge. Maybe the US and EU will lead the way by beeing the first to join together, or maybe the historical ties and proximity to Africa will see the EU merging in that direction, but I do believe it will be the EU and maybe to some extent China that leads the way.

I beg to differ. Many people before WWI thought that when each cultural group had its own nation, than all the nations would exist in harmony. However, instead it unleashed immense national competition and eventually WWI. 5-6 roughly equally powerful economic zones could potentially have the same effect. Although, I do agree that the world is definitely heading in that direction.

The problem with the UN is that nations like Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Turkmenistan all get a seat and a vote - and the sorry state of the world is that these nations outnumber the decent (by my standard - of course everyones standard differs) nations.

Let us not forget that the very beginnings of UN military force (the creation of the "peacekeepers") was a blatant land grab by the UK and France to gain control of the Suez canal. Since then it has been ineffective at best.

The UN is highly corrupt and ineffective - I really wouldnt want it to be the most powerful body on the planet.



Additionally - Since the EU is working on having a single foreign policy between them, shouldnt they then loose their seats at the UN? There should just be a seat for the EU like there is a seat for the US rather than one for every state.

The problem with the UN is that nations like Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Turkmenistan all get a seat and a vote - and the sorry state of the world is that these nations outnumber the decent (by my standard - of course everyones standard differs) nations.

Let us not forget that the very beginnings of UN military force (the creation of the "peacekeepers") was a blatant land grab by the UK and France to gain control of the Suez canal. Since then it has been ineffective at best.

The UN is highly corrupt and ineffective - I really wouldnt want it to be the most powerful body on the planet.



Additionally - Since the EU is working on having a single foreign policy between them, shouldnt they then loose their seats at the UN? There should just be a seat for the EU like there is a seat for the US rather than one for every state.

Well spoken

My friend, international economics are slightly more complicated than Chinese bankers foreclosing on loans to America. While do not profess to understand everything in this regard (in fact I don't understand most of it :) ) the idea of a humongous foreclosure is, quite simply, absurd. If that happened (which, what would be the incentive?) you must also remember that China's largest trading partner is with the US. Its a two way street, and plenty of American firms have more than a little vested interest (I also mean that in monetary terms :) ) in the Chinese economy.
Indeed, but my point being that the huge debt your dear president G.W. Bush has gotten for your country might weight more than any military machine or superweapons if the USA's title as heavyweight champion was contested. It's not just China, but pretty much any country which holds a sizable portion of US debt.

Moreover, China could find markets for its good elsewhere, for example flooding europe's market with cheap goods. Which, ironically enough, would be very bad for europe's industries as well. The same could be said of pretty much any country... except, sadly, for us Canadians, who rely a bit too heavily on trade with our US neighbours. It's not that trading with you is a bad thing, but rather that 80% of all trade going on is with you, and that gives the US an enormous lever over us.

What I'm saying is this: in the future, you'll see less and less conventionnal warfare. Warships, planes, missles, etc... they won't be what really decides who's the boss. Economic "warfare" will, and the US debt is a big obstacle to surmount.

Additionally - Since the EU is working on having a single foreign policy between them, shouldnt they then loose their seats at the UN? There should just be a seat for the EU like there is a seat for the US rather than one for every state.

That sort of problem is a perfect example of why the present "one state, one vote" system is absurd.

I believe that the problem with any world government is that corruption is directly related (approximately) to the cube of the number of square miles the governing body has authority over...

On the other hand, I still thing some sort of U.N. or U.N.-like organization is necessary, but its powers need to be better defined. Is it best as just an advisory council (in which case, who cares? It would be mostly pointless), or should it really have the right to declare war, sanctions, etc? If the latter (probably a good idea), then it needs to be specifically given a military force at its disposal.

Now, let me hypothesize: This leaves two options: a certain percentage of members' armed forces can be specifically reserved to what we can call the "UN Command", or the UN could have a right to enlist from member nations' youth. I honestly think that last might be the best option - if the "blue berets" were a classy alternative to the Marine Corps (I'm from the US) or whatever military force it is that's "cool" in the particular country, and if nations with compulsury military service could let some of that be served with the UN forces, that would establish it, without too much trouble.

On the other hand, this assumes a UN with actual power, and I honestly don't think that would be possible yet - countries like the US have a tradition of arrogant self-government and self-reliance (not wholly a bad thing), and too many countries like China and Sudan are in the UN, but corrupt.

Another option would be for the UN to be an actual international court... but that demands certain written limits. Although a "common law" approach could work best, the world doesn't really have a "common" law.

Would the UN be better if corrupt governments weren't let in? Example: Sudan

Would the UN be better if corrupt governments weren't let in? Example: Sudan

According to whose standard of corruption?

Indeed, but my point being that the huge debt your dear president G.W. Bush has gotten for your country might weight more than any military machine or superweapons if the USA's title as heavyweight champion was contested. It's not just China, but pretty much any country which holds a sizable portion of US debt.

Moreover, China could find markets for its good elsewhere, for example flooding europe's market with cheap goods. Which, ironically enough, would be very bad for europe's industries as well. The same could be said of pretty much any country... except, sadly, for us Canadians, who rely a bit too heavily on trade with our US neighbours. It's not that trading with you is a bad thing, but rather that 80% of all trade going on is with you, and that gives the US an enormous lever over us.

What I'm saying is this: in the future, you'll see less and less conventionnal warfare. Warships, planes, missles, etc... they won't be what really decides who's the boss. Economic "warfare" will, and the US debt is a big obstacle to surmount.

IF the title is contested (which it probably will, don't get me wrong, it just won't happen the way you seem to believe it will), China--any nation--COULD find more markets for its goods. Of course. But, they won't, most likely. Why? Because the deal is too lucrative. The complex world of investors and interest and global markets make it virtually impossible for such a radical change. Sure, it could happen. But why? What incentive? There really is none, besides nations such as China would be losing a tremendous trading partner which WOULD, in fact, damage the Chinese (or other nations' economies) pretty much the same.

But on the last point, yes, conventional warfare may be going out the window...or perhaps that is just wishful thinking, which is a damn sight preferable, don't get me wrong, but...(Let's fight with our economies! Yay! No more blood! No more death!) just sounds a little too idealistic.

I beg to differ. Many people before WWI thought that when each cultural group had its own nation, than all the nations would exist in harmony. However, instead it unleashed immense national competition and eventually WWI. 5-6 roughly equally powerful economic zones could potentially have the same effect. Although, I do agree that the world is definitely heading in that direction.

I'm not saying that conflict will dissapate as long as eah cultural group can tend to themselves, but with the growing EU-model (and US I guess) of a zone where all member states have free axcess to the joint market, members have to much interrest in all the other members to leave the joint marked, that's regulated by a joint parlament. The thought of Germany attacking France for instance in todays world is unthinkable since it would ruin the german economy. Same with China attacking the US for instance, there is just nothing to gain. That's why the global community is terrified by nations like North-Korea, because isolated rogue states like these have nothing to loose by a war.

But on the last point, yes, conventional warfare may be going out the window...or perhaps that is just wishful thinking, which is a damn sight preferable, don't get me wrong, but...(Let's fight with our economies! Yay! No more blood! No more death!) just sounds a little too idealistic.
I think you're not taking this as seriously as you should. Fighting with economies has the potential of being even more deadly and bloody than with conventional weaponry.

If a country's economy collapses due to economic warfare, arnarchy, riots, and civil war can often follow. Without funds to pay police and army, a government cannot enforce the law. Look at what's going on in Haiti at this moment: street gangs, militias, paramilitary... anyone with a firearm rules the neighbourhood.

Moreover, a crumbled economy means suicides, diseases due to malnutrition or lack of hygiene because of failing infrastructure, death by starvation, and who knows what else?

Know what the worst part is? Economic warfare hurts civilians just as much as anyone else. In conventional warfare, soldiers die: but they willingly took up arms and were prepared for what could happen. Civillians who will die from the aftermath of economic warfare were neither prepared nor willing.

Think I'm making that up? Go look at all the atrocities that happen in africa and some countries in the caribbean and latin america. Economic warfare is already going on. We should realize its effects could get to our countries someday, too.

I think you're not taking this as seriously as you should. Fighting with economies has the potential of being even more deadly and bloody than with conventional weaponry.

If a country's economy collapses due to economic warfare, arnarchy, riots, and civil war can often follow. Without funds to pay police and army, a government cannot enforce the law. Look at what's going on in Haiti at this moment: street gangs, militias, paramilitary... anyone with a firearm rules the neighbourhood.

Moreover, a crumbled economy means suicides, diseases due to malnutrition or lack of hygiene because of failing infrastructure, death by starvation, and who knows what else?

Know what the worst part is? Economic warfare hurts civilians just as much as anyone else. In conventional warfare, soldiers die: but they willingly took up arms and were prepared for what could happen. Civillians who will die from the aftermath of economic warfare were neither prepared nor willing.

Think I'm making that up? Go look at all the atrocities that happen in africa and some countries in the caribbean and latin america. Economic warfare is already going on. We should realize its effects could get to our countries someday, too.

No, I don't think you're making that up. Why would I? I admit, my last post made me seem arrogant and naive. But the truth is, I'm sure a lot of what is happening can be traced back to economic difficulties, but it was not caused by the direct meddling of one country's economy for the purpose of dissolving into a state of disorder and disarray. The countries that you mentioned have imploded economies because their economic systems are not near as stable and complex as those of industrialized nations. Further, most of these wars--fought with conventional weapons that are used in conventional warfare (identifying "conventional" as not "economic" in nature)--are the direct result of insecurity in a nation and its openness to revolt and inability to suppress a significant uprising (or corruption that results in dissatisfaction, or a myriad other factors)--which, incidentally, and back on the orignial topic, a more powerful UN would be able to step in and stem the atrocities. My point being, yes, economies are a large part of what is going on, but it is not the result of pitting one nation's economy against another in a sort of "economic war."

Actually, this is one of the better aspects of the UN today. One nation = One vote.

For what reason should a person in India get a tiny fraction of the representation a person in Monaco gets?

What really needs to be addressed is the fact that, for instance, on the REVISED Human Rights Council, six nations known for civil rights abuses were voted as members. Clearly, this is something that does not add up right.

If you want a nation without human rights abuses, you're going to be looking for a very long time.

What would you think about the UN having a Large Military Force behind it?

Right now they have the Blue Berrets, but its not enough to actually STOP a war, only help the victims.

Uhh no.

Rape, pillage, murder, massacre globally. The UN can't run its own military well enough...to have a large military force. And the fact that someone such as Kofi annan has enough troops to possibly threaten the US, makes me nervous, and gleeful.

This sums up my thoughts exactly.

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=5/14702531390.jpg&s=f5

Federal Earth? Anyone who supports that? Why? Do we have to be a 1 "country" to avoid wars? No f****** way. All we gotta do is to learn to deal with our differences in a civilized manner, NOT try to erease those differences...
UN should be a regulating body that deals with global issues, like Global Warming, Human Rights, etc....
I am. As long as those differences and the borders that coincide with them exist, there will be wars.
There is no reason for separate nations except for one to dominate another.

A Federal Earth would make the Human Race progress alot faster, if all discoveries were to be made known to all corners of the world.

But I'm not as niave to beleive it would result in world peace, just a faster progress.

Pure speculation. If USA and Soviets didnt compete for Space Race, and if they were a single country, our space technology and all related stuff would be 30 years backward.
Besides, is progress on all corners of world a good thing? I mean it's a good thing eventually (when that level of progress is sustainable) but now/too soon? Imagine, if everyone on Earth lived like Americans, the Earth would be toooo polluted, the global warming much worse, resources much scarcer.

According to whose standard of corruption?

Probably UN standards

The UN loves nothing more than setting up committees to set standards

Probably UN standards

So the relevant committee could just kick nations out as they saw fit? How do you know it wouldn't end up with a similar composition to the Human Rights Council?

Me. With the reservation that global socialist anarchism would be better, but I digress.



War isn't my primary concern, if we're still in a situation where nations are regularly warring against one another there will not be a global government. Today most wars are intranational rather than international, which is one reason increased global government may be feasible.

Perhaps the most important reason for me is the regulation of the global economy. Right now, to the extent that regulation exists, it is insufficient and dominated by the rich nations. With the variety of ways in which the global economy restricts the capability of individual states to regulate the economy, a global institution capable of effectively doing so on a democratic basis should be created. Such a framework would also aid in restraining economic nationalism.

Economic regulation doesnt require Federal Earth....
Rich nations dont hold back Poorer ones. ex: China, poor, developing very fast. Why? I dunno...their smart policies?
ex2: Africa, poor, not developing. Why? Civil wars, wars between themselves, bad governence, aids, etc....(things that rich nations arent responsible for, at least mostly)

Economic regulation doesnt require Federal Earth....

Global economic regulation most definitely does, and national economic regulation is ineffective at regulating the global economy. The issues - global poverty, environmental degradation, the influence of capital flows on democratic governments, free trade - cannot be effectively dealt with on a national basis, because they are not national issues.

Some day I would like to see a Confederated Earth with principles much akin to the Articles of Confederation (perhaps a bit softer on the amount of influence able to be levied but not by much). But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for this to occur. If the US' original 13 colonies couldn't successfully make this work out, then I hardly imagine several hundred separate nations could do it.


The UN relies far too heavily on US funding in my opinion. I honestly wish the US would scale back its amount of funding used on the UN and use it to subsidize economic growth. But if the UN was to stay afloat that would mean that the other nations would have to pick up the slack. So which other Superpower out there wants to be the first candidate?




Skaladora: US national debt is something of past-time for this country. This country can swing a trillion debt/surplus in a single fiscal year if it were so inclined. This is how during Clinton's administration we ended up with quite a bit of surplus after working off our previous trillions of dollar national debt following the Gulf War.


And having studied the global economic situation in some of my classes I can safely say that the US' "clay feet" as you put it are probably a bit harder than you might think. Currently there is only one market investors have a high degree of interest in, and that is the US. There really isn't any other choice available. Certainly China is on the rise, but China has no interest in provoking the US, especially since the US can in short order decimate just about any modern economy on the planet. China may well one day supplant the US as hegemon; some sociological predictions support this assessment, but this will not occur in anything less than 30 years time minimum. So long as US productivity and scientific research remains anywhere near its current level no one is going to have the capability to rival the US in that time span. Most credible experts predict a hegemonic shift won't occur in less than 50 years. And there are quite a few who suggest a century is more accurate.

Outsourcing has done a lot to bolster China's economy, but don't forget that most of the corporations who have "set up shop" in China are owned by Americans, and they aren't going to just stand by and watch should China just decide to up and screw over Wall-Street. Beyond that it makes very little sense to try and destroy the US economy since the New York stock exchange is the largest exchange on the planet. You may well wish to supplant the US as largest power holder on the planet, but you sure as hell don't want to ruin its economy because that would collapse wall street, and this means bankrupcy for more than just the US. That's onset of global depression right there.


Sure non-US investors could, for some reason foreign to my understanding, pull out all at once and bankrupt the US economy. But the US could do far worse by having all of its corporations and investors pull out of other countries; this would ruin just about ever modern country on earth. While the international scene certainly isn't flat it is much more flat than in previous time periods. You can't just ruin one nations economy and expect it to have no effect on other countries.


The most realistic picture of the "near" future is a nation (could be China) heavily influenced by an economic conglomerate and the US playing "second fiddle" since it will likely take on the role Britain did after its period as hegemon acting as the "world's bank." And this is not as far-fetched as it seems once you consider how many countries assets are tied up in Wall-Street.

NT

For what reason should a person in India get a tiny fraction of the representation a person in Monaco gets?



If you want a nation without human rights abuses, you're going to be looking for a very long time.

Why should a nation such as India receive one/sixth of the world's votes, just by virtue of possessing such an enormous population? And if nations such as China and India, which together make up over 1/3 of the world population, possessed a proportionate number of votes in a powerful UN, can you imagine how much nations like Monaco and Luxembourg would suffer, if their voice could not even be heard? Besides making the UN too big to be feasible (we're talking about comparing a population of 1.2 billion to a population of 32,000. Even if Monaco's population equaled 1 vote, that would mean 1 200 000 000 000/32 000 = 37 500 000 votes for India alone). The purpose of a United Nations is that each gets the same vote, and everyone's voice is heard (ideally) so that no one country can dominate, by virtue of voting, world policies.

Some day I would like to see a Confederated Earth with principles much akin to the Articles of Confederation (perhaps a bit softer on the amount of influence able to be levied but not by much). But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for this to occur. If the US' original 13 colonies couldn't successfully make this work out, then I hardly imagine several hundred separate nations could do it.


The UN relies far too heavily on US funding in my opinion. I honestly wish the US would scale back its amount of funding used on the UN and use it to subsidize economic growth. But if the UN was to stay afloat that would mean that the other nations would have to pick up the slack. So which other Superpower out there wants to be the first candidate?




Skaladora: US national debt is something of past-time for this country. This country can swing a trillion debt/surplus in a single fiscal year if it were so inclined. This is how during Clinton's administration we ended up with quite a bit of surplus after working off our previous trillions of dollar national debt following the Gulf War.


And having studied the global economic situation in some of my classes I can safely say that the US' "clay feet" as you put it are probably a bit harder than you might think. Currently there is only one market investors have a high degree of interest in, and that is the US. There really isn't any other choice available. Certainly China is on the rise, but China has no interest in provoking the US, especially since the US can in short order decimate just about any modern economy on the planet. China may well one day supplant the US as hegemon; some sociological predictions support this assessment, but this will not occur in anything less than 30 years time minimum. So long as US productivity and scientific research remains anywhere near its current level no one is going to have the capability to rival the US in that time span. Most credible experts predict a hegemonic shift won't occur in less than 50 years. And there are quite a few who suggest a century is more accurate.

Outsourcing has done a lot to bolster China's economy, but don't forget that most of the corporations who have "set up shop" in China are owned by Americans, and they aren't going to just stand by and watch should China just decide to up and screw over Wall-Street. Beyond that it makes very little sense to try and destroy the US economy since the New York stock exchange is the largest exchange on the planet. You may well wish to supplant the US as largest power holder on the planet, but you sure as hell don't want to ruin its economy because that would collapse wall street, and this means bankrupcy for more than just the US. That's onset of global depression right there.


Sure non-US investors could, for some reason foreign to my understanding, pull out all at once and bankrupt the US economy. But the US could do far worse by having all of its corporations and investors pull out of other countries; this would ruin just about ever modern country on earth. While the international scene certainly isn't flat it is much more flat than in previous time periods. You can't just ruin one nations economy and expect it to have no effect on other countries.


The most realistic picture of the "near" future is a nation (could be China) heavily influenced by an economic conglomerate and the US playing "second fiddle" since it will likely take on the role Britain did after its period as hegemon acting as the "world's bank." And this is not as far-fetched as it seems once you consider how many countries assets are tied up in Wall-Street.

NT

Thanks. What I've been trying to say. :p

Economic regulation doesnt require Federal Earth....
Rich nations dont hold back Poorer ones. ex: China, poor, developing very fast. Why? I dunno...their smart policies?
ex2: Africa, poor, not developing. Why? Civil wars, wars between themselves, bad governence, aids, etc....(things that rich nations arent responsible for, at least mostly)

Pardon? China is poor? Oh, certainly a large portion of its citizens are well below the poverty line, but then again, so is a large chunk of the US population. China is the fastest growing and second-largest national economy in the world, possessing a GDP amounting to slightly less Japan, India, and Germany--the next three in line--combined. And yes, rich nations do hold back poorer ones, or they have in the past, for economic benefit--can you imagine a world where Iran was just as technologically advanced as many western nations?

Why should a nation such as India receive one/sixth of the world's votes, just by virtue of possessing such an enormous population?

"Why should that political party win the election, just by virtue of getting a majority of the vote?" It's basic democratic principle - one person, one vote, or 1/36000 of a vote, as the case may be.

And if nations such as China and India, which together make up over 1/3 of the world population, possessed a proportionate number of votes in a powerful UN, can you imagine how much nations like Monaco and Luxembourg would suffer, if their voice could not even be heard?

Their voice would be heard, but their votes would not count as much. In the US, should the Constitution Party and the Communist Party USA have equal representation to the Democratic and Republican parties?

Besides making the UN too big to be feasible (we're talking about comparing a population of 1.2 billion to a population of 32,000. Even if Monaco's population equaled 1 vote, that would mean 1 200 000 000 000/32 000 = 37 500 000 votes for India alone).

I don't think nations would have delegates for every one of their votes. Personally, I'd keep national delegations for the largest nations somewhere in the 15-20 range, with each delegate having an equal proportion of the votes. Preferably, they would be elected democratically, through single transferable vote, maybe.

Or, even better, why not just get rid of the state-based system and replace it with a global parliament elected directly, and on a global basis, by the world's people?

And your math is wrong, by the way - India does not have 1.2 trillion people, merely 1.2 billion.

The purpose of a United Nations is that each gets the same vote, and everyone's voice is heard (ideally) so that no one country can dominate, by virtue of voting, world policies.

Why exactly would the Indian people deserve greater representation if, say, India split into 37,500 little countries? Why should the European people deserve less representation if their foreign policy is consolidated into that of the European Union?

The U.N is a wonderful concept, unfortunately riddled with graft, incompetence, and countries only interested in thier own agenda, often to the detriment of the task at hand.

The U.N relies on funds and troops from member countries, quite often neither is forthcoming when needed.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/chronol/hist.htm

"Why should that political party win the election, just by virtue of getting a majority of the vote?" It's basic democratic principle - one person, one vote, or 1/36000 of a vote, as the case may be.

Exactly. Democratic principle--one nation, one vote. Check your logic. It's flawed.

Their voice would be heard, but their votes would not count as much. In the US, should the Constitution Party and the Communist Party USA have equal representation to the Democratic and Republican parties?

False analogy, my friend. The political parties in the US have nothing to do with representation.

I don't think nations would have delegates for every one of their votes. Personally, I'd keep national delegations for the largest nations somewhere in the 15-20 range, with each delegate having an equal proportion of the votes. Preferably, they would be elected democratically, through single transferable vote, maybe.

But then, where would the representation be equal if there was a cap of twenty votes? You contradict yourself.

Or, even better, why not just get rid of the state-based system and replace it with a global parliament elected directly, and on a global basis, by the world's people?

How would that be better? We would achieve the same results as each nation being represented by population, which is flawed, as I have already pointed out.

And your math is wrong, by the way - India does not have 1.2 trillion people, merely 1.2 billion.

My apologies. Does not change the fact that India, by your system, would have a ridiculous amount of representatives.

Why exactly would the Indian people deserve greater representation if, say, India split into 37,500 little countries? Why should the European people deserve less representation if their foreign policy is consolidated into that of the European Union?

I'm afraid I don't understand your point here. If India split into 37,500 different countries, they would each have their own equal representation and be separate countries, not a single India.