Is it time for a new United Nations?

[Argus]

I know some will claim there are parts of the United Nations which are actually functional on some scale, such as UNESCO and that it does good work with refugees. But honestly, shouldn't we have some sort of international forum where pressing issues can be discussed without the presence of the mass of jumped up goat-herders, banana republic dictators and wack jobs who make up the great majority of the membership of the current United Nations?

We can start with NATO, which is looking for a new Raison d'être, and incorporate the remainder of Europe, ie, Austria, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, etc.

The remainder of the membership would consist of:

Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Israel, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, South Africa, India, Russia, China, the Philippines, Indonesia, Egypt.

The above would represent the great majority of the world's population. Not all are democracies. Not all are friendly to the Western viewpoint of the world. But those who aren't are heavyweights in their own way, generally more sensible and practical than the illiterate third world rabble which makes up the main body of the UN.

There would be less corruption and more would get done. Who knows? Maybe being a member of a club which is almost entirely democratic would have some influence on those who aren't. But even if not, their ability to influence their betters in voting would be greatly diminished without the yapping hyenas which surround them. Close down the UN and stop giving jumped up savages such a voice on the world stage. Nobody needs to know or care what the likes of Iran or Zimbabwe or Venezuela says or thinks or wants.

Just when you think it’s impossible for the United Nations to get any more ridiculous, it finds new ways to outdo itself. Consider that this week alone, Iran and Saudi Arabia ascended to membership on the UN women’s rights panel, Cuba organized a host of rights-abusing dictatorships to gang up on the United States and officially denounce its human rights record

UN Outdoes Itself

[KeyStone]

I know some will claim there are parts of the United Nations which are actually functional on some scale, such as UNESCO and that it does good work with refugees. But honestly, shouldn't we have some sort of international forum where pressing issues can be discussed without the presence of the mass of jumped up goat-herders, banana republic dictators and wack jobs who make up the great majority of the membership of the current United Nations?

We can start with NATO, which is looking for a new Raison d'être, and incorporate the remainder of Europe, ie, Austria, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, etc.

The remainder of the membership would consist of:

Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Israel, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, South Africa, India, Russia, China, the Philippines, Indonesia, Egypt.

The above would represent the great majority of the world's population. Not all are democracies. Not all are friendly to the Western viewpoint of the world. But those who aren't are heavyweights in their own way, generally more sensible and practical than the illiterate third world rabble which makes up the main body of the UN.

There would be less corruption and more would get done. Who knows? Maybe being a member of a club which is almost entirely democratic would have some influence on those who aren't. But even if not, their ability to influence their betters in voting would be greatly diminished without the yapping hyenas which surround them. Close down the UN and stop giving jumped up savages such a voice on the world stage. Nobody needs to know or care what the likes of Iran or Zimbabwe or Venezuela says or thinks or wants.

Just when you think it’s impossible for the United Nations to get any more ridiculous, it finds new ways to outdo itself. Consider that this week alone, Iran and Saudi Arabia ascended to membership on the UN women’s rights panel, Cuba organized a host of rights-abusing dictatorships to gang up on the United States and officially denounce its human rights record

UN Outdoes Itself

Come on Argus,

Just say what you really want. Let's make the US and Israel the only permanent members of the security council.

You don't denounce something just because you can't have your way all of the time.

As for various regimes getting on committees, it's obvious you don't understand the process.

The members of each region vote for the representative to the council. It's democratic. Democracy does not always work the way it is supposed to.

However, I agree that the UN needs some reforms.

The five permanent members no longer represent a well-balanced and powerful array of nations - France and the UK don't really need to be there - and Brazil and Japan should be on it. I would replace France and the UK with two seats for the EU, and add Brazil and Japan.

[bloodyminded]

Just incidentally (or maybe not so incidentally), are we honestly and sincerely trying to argue that the powerful democracies are exemplary, rather than criminal in many of their international dealings and performances...and so we are thus utterly set apart from the tyrannies in every way?

Because this "theory" (actually, quasi-religious Belief) rests somewhere between wild conspiracy theory, ancient epic poem, and children's morality tale.

Certainly, the United States, UK, And France don't fit the bill of honest arbiters and protectors of human rights. Canada wouldn't pass muster either.

Unless we assume nationalism the highest moral virtue, more important than truth. Some do, I think.

Edited November 6, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

Just say what you really want. Let's make the US and Israel the only permanent members of the security council.

I have no especially love for Israel or the US. I find both to be filled with flaws, as are most countries. But with the makeup I described, the organization would not need a "permanent" security council membership.

As for various regimes getting on committees, it's obvious you don't understand the process.

The members of each region vote for the representative to the council. It's democratic. Democracy does not always work the way it is supposed to.

What makes you think I have the overwhelming affection for democracy you appear to? That this is a "democratic" process is irrelevant to me. When you have an organization which has Libya chairing its Human Rights council and puts the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia on the womens rights panel, well, it's simply absurd to even be contributing money, much less time and respect.

The five permanent members no longer represent a well-balanced and powerful array of nations - France and the UK don't really need to be there - and Brazil and Japan should be on it. I would replace France and the UK with two seats for the EU, and add Brazil and Japan.

Why would Japan merit a permanent seat and not China? Why Brazil and not India? Why should the EU get two seats?

[Argus]

Just incidentally (or maybe not so incidentally), are we honestly and sincerely trying to argue that the powerful democracies are exemplary, rather than criminal in many of their international dealings and performances..

Yes.

[bloodyminded]

Yes.

No. Not if "exemplary" has any meaning. Not even according to you. not even according to you in this very thread.

I'm afraid I don't think this was a serious response.

[Shwa]

Yes.

No. Not if "exemplary" has any meaning. Not even according to you. not even according to you in this very thread.

I'm afraid I don't think this was a serious response.

What gave it away? The opening shot that included "banana republic dictators?"

[TimG]

But honestly, shouldn't we have some sort of international forum where pressing issues can be discussed.

We do. G8/G20.

The UN serves its purposes by giving nations a place to go to talk about disputes. The fact that it is completely disfunctional is irrelevant. Any business that actually needs to get done happens outside the UN anyways.

Edited November 6, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

Its not the fact theres two many nations in the UN that make it disfunctional... Its the UNSC veto and UNSC members. All a belligerent has to do is cozy up to the US, or Russia, or China and theyre completely above the law.

Every single time a belligerent nation is not held to account its the fault of the UNSC members. Not "goat herders" .

Id get rid of the UNSC and change the system of voting. A country like Canada or Mexico shouldnt have as much power as the US or Russia, but all countries should be able to vote on matters of security and enforcement.

You could achieve this by awarding delegates to each country based on a formula that takes into account their population, gpd, and human development index, and military. The US might get 20 delegates, Russia might get 12 and Canada might get 5. Each of those delegates would get a vote. The permanent members of the UNSC would still have a lot more power than other countries but they wouldnt be the ONLY ones with any power, and they wouldnt be able to derail the process like they do now.

Edited November 6, 2010 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

...Unless we assume nationalism the highest moral virtue, more important than truth. Some do, I think.

There is no ultimate truth, but there is nationalism. Therein lies your answer.

[Argus]

No. Not if "exemplary" has any meaning. Not even according to you. not even according to you in this very thread.

I'm afraid I don't think this was a serious response.

Well, I'm grading on a curve.

[Argus]

Its not the fact theres two many nations in the UN that make it disfunctional... Its the UNSC veto and UNSC members. All a belligerent has to do is cozy up to the US, or Russia, or China and theyre completely above the law.

If it were'nt for the UNSC and vetoes the UN would have already ordered the invasion of Israel, and would have ordered the redistribution of all Western wealth to third world countries.

[dre]

If it were'nt for the UNSC and vetoes the UN would have already ordered the invasion of Israel, and would have ordered the redistribution of all Western wealth to third world countries.

The UNSC SHOULD have invaded Israel 40 years ago and forced both sides to behave. They are supposed to be enforcing international law, which both sides in the Is/Pal conflict are in a perpetual state of non compliance with. If we had done so those idiotic dirt farmers in that god forsaken dump wouldnt polluting my news cycle anymore.

Our failure to act over there is one of the UN's biggest failings. They drew lines to delineated a jewish and arab state then did nothing to enforce them.

And under the scheme I mentioned your second concern would not happen, because major western countries would still have most of the delegates.

In any case... under the system I mentioned

Edited November 7, 2010 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

The UNSC SHOULD have invaded Israel 40 years ago and forced both sides to behave.....

Don't write checks you can't cash. Which armies would have done your UNSC bidding "40 years ago" ?

[DogOnPorch]

Don't write checks you can't cash. Which armies would have done your UNSC bidding "40 years ago" ?

Der Wehrmacht? Ooops...a tad late.

[waldo]

Unless we assume nationalism the highest moral virtue, more important than truth. Some do, I think.

yes... some do!

legalities? Morality? Whaaa!... "diplomatic immunity, squawk!, diplomatic immunity, squawk!"

US spying on UN leadership

• Diplomats ordered to gather intelligence on Ban Ki-moon

• Secret directives sent to more than 30 US embassies

• Call for DNA data, computer passwords and terrorist links

Washington is running a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the leadership of the United Nations, including the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon and the permanent security council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.

A classified directive which appears to blur the line between diplomacy and spying was issued to US diplomats under Hillary Clinton's name in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.

It called for detailed biometric information "on key UN officials, to include undersecretaries, heads of specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG [secretary general] aides, heads of peace operations and political field missions, including force commanders" as well as intelligence on Ban's "management and decision-making style and his influence on the secretariat". A parallel intelligence directive sent to diplomats in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi said biometric data included DNA, fingerprints and iris scans.

Washington also wanted credit card numbers, email addresses, phone, fax and pager numbers and even frequent-flyer account numbers for UN figures and "biographic and biometric information on UN Security Council permanent representatives".

The secret "national human intelligence collection directive" was sent to US missions at the UN in New York, Vienna and Rome; 33 embassies and consulates, including those in London, Paris and Moscow.

The leak of the directive is likely to spark questions about the legality of the operation and about whether state department diplomats are expected to spy. The level of technical and personal detail demanded about the UN top team's communication systems could be seen as laying the groundwork for surveillance or hacking operations. It requested "current technical specifications, physical layout and planned upgrades to telecommunications infrastructure and information systems, networks and technologies used by top officials and their support staff", as well as details on private networks used for official communication, "to include upgrades, security measures, passwords, personal encryption keys and virtual private network versions used".

[KeyStone]

Why would Japan merit a permanent seat and not China? Why Brazil and not India? Why should the EU get two seats?

China already has a permanent seat.

The problem with including India is that Pakistan would not like it, and they are a crucial ally on the war on terror.

The EU having two seats, shares the power throughout the EU, rather than giving it only to UK and France.