Canada should lead a U.N. reform.

[Melanie_]

visiting at the request of the Harper Conservative government, Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food... conveyed a preliminary review in regards to his May 6-16 visit to Canada:

as conveyed in the report, a somewhat exhaustive trip meeting with multitudes of official organizations/representatives, highlighting that, yes, many Canadians are suffering from poverty, inequality and an inability to afford daily food needs.

it seems the usual UN bashing subjects have shown up in this thread... perhaps they might actually choose to challenge the review of Olivier De Schutter, the UN right-to-food envoy - perhaps the 'foreign criminal', Conrad Black, has irrelevant input.

Thanks for the link, it clarified the point for me; I was honestly asking for more info. I'm not a UN basher; in fact, I admire much of the work the UN does, particularly on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I know the UN isn't perfect; there are inefficiencies and imbalances of power, but there still is good work being done on many fronts.

[Signals.Cpl]

We should not reform the UN, we should get the hell out of the UN.

We need the UN, just one that works properly. We need a world organization where the power does not rest in the hands of 5 nations thereby negating the opinions and voices of the other 188 member states. If the UN is to be productive and efficient it needs to be proactive in the field of peacemaking by possessing their own weapons, equipment and manpower. The departments and organizations that do make up the UN should be build up and organized in order to support each other in all areas rather than compete for meagre resources and conceal information from each other. And most important of all, there needs to be a consistent and secure source of income in order to fund the whole organization.

[dre]

We need the UN, just one that works properly. We need a world organization where the power does not rest in the hands of 5 nations thereby negating the opinions and voices of the other 188 member states.

I agree with you. But the UN never would have been formed in the first place without permanent UNSC membership and its veto, and those countries will never give it up now.

Its a mixed bag with plenty of failures as well as successes but its not gonna change any time soon.

[Signals.Cpl]

I agree with you. But the UN never would have been formed in the first place without permanent UNSC membership and its veto, and those countries will never give it up now.

Its a mixed bag with plenty of failures as well as successes but its not gonna change any time soon.

It was created with the veto powers under different circumstances, what is needed is a proponent within the organization itself proposing drastic change while nations start a great exodus from the UN thus forcing the powers that be to change seeing as veto power means nothing if its only 5 members in the organization. If there is a great exodus of nations from the UN one of several things will happen, first the UN collapses and no world organization takes its place leaving regional organizations to take the lead within their region, two the UN is reformed when the veto powers see that the UN is collapsing and determine that there is in fact a need for a world organization and thus agree to the change or three is the expansion of a regional organization in the role of partially replacing the UN.

Trying to restructure the UN will be hard and the only way to have even a sliver of hope is if nations started leaving the organization.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[Guest Derek L]

We need the UN, just one that works properly. We need a world organization where the power does not rest in the hands of 5 nations thereby negating the opinions and voices of the other 188 member states. If the UN is to be productive and efficient it needs to be proactive in the field of peacemaking by possessing their own weapons, equipment and manpower. The departments and organizations that do make up the UN should be build up and organized in order to support each other in all areas rather than compete for meagre resources and conceal information from each other. And most important of all, there needs to be a consistent and secure source of income in order to fund the whole organization.

Two things, would you really want the majority of those 188 other nations having an equal voice?

Second, the mention of an armed and organized military under the control of a One World Government sounds unnerving to say the least………..Some might get positive visions of Star Trek like results and others, (and I find the more likely outcome) the return of Jesus with a vengeance…….

Revelation 13:1

Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name. Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast. So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"

[Signals.Cpl]

Two things, would you really want the majority of those 188 other nations having an equal voice?

Yes, if we want them to participate in solving global problems they need to have an equal voice. There would of course be a restructured security council in order to make decision making more fluid and quicker but without the veto power in play, as well there would be certain limitation placed on nations that don't meet a certain set of standards(eg. not committing genocide against your own people)

Second, the mention of an armed and organized military under the control of a One World Government sounds unnerving to say the least………..Some might get positive visions of Star Trek like results and others, (and I find the more likely outcome) the return of Jesus with a vengeance…….

By UN Armed Forces I mean a force that has its own equipment and troops part peacekeepers/observers part heavily armed peacemakers. I can't foresee at least in the near future a world government maintaining a force that replaces the militaries of the member states more of a force where should a mission require 10,000 heavily armed soldiers the SC can deploy them without having to beg its member states for everything from transport to flashlights and from weapons to soldiers. And I am in no way talking about a force to rival say the US, more of a force that maintains a certain standard and can be deployed to hot spots in order to prevent or limit a conflict.

[dre]

It was created with the veto powers under different circumstances, what is needed is a proponent within the organization itself proposing drastic change while nations start a great exodus from the UN thus forcing the powers that be to change seeing as veto power means nothing if its only 5 members in the organization. If there is a great exodus of nations from the UN one of several things will happen, first the UN collapses and no world organization takes its place leaving regional organizations to take the lead within their region, two the UN is reformed when the veto powers see that the UN is collapsing and determine that there is in fact a need for a world organization and thus agree to the change or three is the expansion of a regional organization in the role of partially replacing the UN.

Trying to restructure the UN will be hard and the only way to have even a sliver of hope is if nations started leaving the organization.

No nations of note are going to leave any time soon. However you feel about the UN it should be clear by now that theres a considerable political commitment to it world-wide.

[Signals.Cpl]

No nations of note are going to leave any time soon. However you feel about the UN it should be clear by now that theres a considerable political commitment to it world-wide.

I understand that there is commitment for the UN, unfortunately that commitment is by made by governments with ulterior and this quote expresses that in a way better than I could ever express:

For most countries, serving the UN's objectives has never seemed worth even the smallest of risks. Member nations do not want a large, reputable, strong and independent United Nations, no matter their hypocritical pronouncements otherwise. What they want is a weak, beholden, indebted scapegoat of an organization, which they can blame for their failures or steal victories from.

Shake Hands with the Devil (2003)

[waldo]

Olivier De Schutter, the UN right-to-food envoy: "What I’ve seen in Canada is a system that presents barriers for the poor to access nutritious diets and that tolerates increased inequalities between rich and poor, and aboriginal non-aboriginal peoples."

"Canada has long been seen as a land of plenty. Yet today one in 10 families with a child under 6 is unable to meet their daily food needs. These rates of food insecurity are unacceptable, and it is time for Canada to adopt a national right-to-food strategy."

"This is a country that is rich but that fails to adapt the levels of social assistance benefits and its minimum wage to the rising costs of basic necessities, including food and housing."

"A long history of political and economic marginalization has left many indigenous peoples with considerably lower levels of access to adequate food relative to the general population."

"More than one in four Canadian adults are obese, a rate that costs at least $5 billion a year in health care costs and lost productivity."

When we say access I'm assuming we are talking about not being able to afford nutritious food....which raises a few other questions.

Is it a choice they make ....i.e., how many times have we seen people decide to spend that on something else other than drinking , gambling, on fast food or garbage food, luxury items what ever....so my question would be if we took these bad decisions out how many Canadians would still not be able to afford nutritious food. And i get it sometimes you just feel the need for something, and go out and buy it, at least i do, but me and my family are lucky, and we have never been without the basic items ever, but if my family ever went hungry I'd be having a yard sale.

I've yet to see a Canadian family on some NGO advertisement that looks like a third world one.

Do we enable them i mean within Canada there are dozens of programs for kids to get good food, at school, local food bank, at work, town city and provincial government has programs....what incentives do we provide, to get off this assistance, or for that matter, to make better choices...

As for the UN rubbing our faces in it. Like most articles I've read on the topic , i agree I'm sure there are bigger fish to fry, than Canada....but there is some truth into what this guys says, some truth not all, always room for improvement.

Perhaps we can take that inter national Aid monies and improve our programs here at home....but I'm sure we don't want more big government coming in and telling us hey...sir, put the beer back, you got a family to feed, or sister place the big mac down there is better food out there for you....so where do you draw the line...

I expect there is a clear distinction between the Canadians the UN right-to-food envoy is speaking to... and the types of Canadians you presume upon; i.e., those with an actual disposable income making 'inappropriate' choices. Perhaps the only cross-over might occur when he speaks to a secondary review element - obesity; where choices within that disposable income come into play.

as for the, as you say, "UN rubbing our faces in it"... the Harper Conservative Government solicited the review (with an open UN invite). I trust most Canadians have a thicker skin than to personalize the critical review as a personal affront; rather, I trust most Canadians would look to the review for areas of improvement. Your attempting to compare Canada to 3rd world countries is a non-starter. Like I said... most Canadians... most thinking Canadians - which would exclude Harper Conservative Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney:

Harper Conservative Immigration Minister - Jason Kenney

: "It would be our hope that the contributions we make to the United Nations are used to help starving people in developing countries, not to give lectures to wealthy and developed countries like Canada. I think this is a discredit to the United Nations."

[waldo]

Thanks for the link, it clarified the point for me; I was honestly asking for more info. I'm not a UN basher; in fact, I admire much of the work the UN does, particularly on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I know the UN isn't perfect; there are inefficiencies and imbalances of power, but there still is good work being done on many fronts.

apology... my 'usual suspect' net wasn't intending to suggest you were one (of the UN bashers).

[waldo]

I understand that there is commitment for the UN, unfortunately that commitment is by made by governments with ulterior (motives) and this quote expresses that in a way better than I could ever express:

For most countries, serving the UN's objectives has never seemed worth even the smallest of risks. Member nations do not want a large, reputable, strong and independent United Nations, no matter their hypocritical pronouncements otherwise. What they want is a weak, beholden, indebted scapegoat of an organization, which they can blame for their failures or steal victories from.

Shake Hands with the Devil (2003)

in your role as MLW head UN basher, I get the overwhelming impression you know nothing of ICRtoP, particularly the adoption and continuing UN role. Your Romeo Dallaire quote pre-dates ICRtoP (2005 impetus)... I expect the following vid will suggest to you Dallaire is, 'back in the (UN) fold' given ICRtoP. Clearly, he's not above criticizing where needed... he also supports your call for a firmer UN force complement, although I expect his view on a NATO force reliance may leave you soured, given your expressed NATO enthusiasm. Dallaire does speak at length to the recent Libya 'campaign' and it's ICRtoP attachments... what was followed, what (more) could/should have been done, what was done, etc..

Edited July 4, 2012 by waldo

[Signals.Cpl]

in your role as MLW head UN basher, I get the overwhelming impression you know nothing of ICRtoP, particularly the adoption and continuing UN role. Your Romeo Dallaire quote pre-dates ICRtoP (2005 impetus)... I expect the following vid will suggest to you Dallaire is, 'back in the (UN) fold' given ICRtoP. Clearly, he's not above criticizing where needed... he also supports your call for a firmer UN force complement, although I expect his view on a NATO force reliance may leave you soured, given your expressed NATO enthusiasm. Dallaire does speak at length to the recent Libya 'campaign' and it's ICRtoP attachments... what was followed, what (more) could/should have been done, what was done, etc..

I'm not a UN basher I just want a UN that works and can be useful to humanity. You on the other hand have a naive view of the organization while knowing absolutely nothing about international law and/or relations. You want to keep the broken organizations because it fulfills your fantasy of a world organization even though in reality it is nothing but a rotten shell.

[waldo]

I'm not a UN basher I just want a UN that works and can be useful to humanity.

I must have confused you with a different MLW member, 'Signals.Cpl'... that guy is forever, over and over, labeling the UN as, "useless and a waste of money". Why, I believe that guy has even called for a replacement organization, several times now - something about some contradictory worldly 'regional' undertaking... why, that guy was just dreaming about an exodus of nations from the UN... a collapse of the UN, no less. Do you know that other guy, that other MLW member, 'Signals.Cpl'?

You on the other hand have a naive view of the organization while knowing absolutely nothing about international law and/or relations.

whatever view I hold of the UN... that view does include knowledge of the ICRtoP! If nothing else, this exchange was useful to bring your understanding forward... if only just a bit, hey? I trust you will now embrace the existence of the ICRtoP and liberally pepper your future related posts with a new found insight. As for whatever knowledge I have of, as you say, "international law and/or relations", you clearly need to know when to let something go - just accept you were schooled, big time, and move on! I was certainly more than willing to enlighten you on details of the actual state of Russian Arctic sovereignty pursuits... with Russia showing all signs of following international framework/convention. Equally, I still await your answering the simple question, you forever avoided - you know, the one related to your nonsensical fabrication of a ridiculous UN veto scenario... one that has no practical sense, one that fails given the ludicrous premise/outcome your rambling hypothetical is based upon and called for. Again, just answer the question and showcase your self-proclaimed knowledge on, as you say, "international law and/or relations"... just answer the question - to veto what... to what end?

as I said, Russia just isn't playing into your trumped up boogeyman scenario: not only is Russia most transparent in announcing its current efforts in pursuit of building a scientifically founded case to support its Arctic aspirations, Russia formally announced it's intention to bring it's case forward to have the UN rule upon it. But of course, you trot out the SC permanent members veto card - your boogeyman 'ace-in-the-whole'... which, of course, shows your fabrication has no barriers! The whole point of that little exercise was to get you to see the idiocy of your scenario and just how a, ultimately, veto play made absolutely no sense - in that scenario of yours... not another new one you want to fabricate and play out while conveniently ignoring this one.

so, again, I quite willingly laid out your idiotic boogeyman scenario, the one that gave you your convenient UN slag. The idiotic scenario that presumes upon a UN ruling going against Russia, Russia moving the dispute to the World Court, the World Court ruling against Russia, Russia taking the World Court decision back to UN... and then... UN SC members ruling against "accepting the Russian claim"...

and then Russia leveraging it's UN SC veto to... to veto... what?

The question you can't/won't answer, because you know it shows just how ridiculous your fabrications run and the lengths to which you'll take them. If... if... everything lined up to feed into your ultimate Russian SC permanent member veto play, it would mean what? That Russia would veto the fact that international law won't recognize its Arctic aspiration claim?

Would your imaginary Russian veto suddenly turn international law around to recognize a Russian Arctic claim?

[dre]

I'm not a UN basher I just want a UN that works and can be useful to humanity. You on the other hand have a naive view of the organization while knowing absolutely nothing about international law and/or relations. You want to keep the broken organizations because it fulfills your fantasy of a world organization even though in reality it is nothing but a rotten shell.

The UN is usefull to humanity. Youre expecting to be something that it isnt. In one of your posts you mention a "strong and independant" UN, but thats not what it was ever meant to be. Its simply a venue where countries can sit down and talk and negotiate. And the security and humanitarian aspects are only part of what the UN does. Its served as a platform for the negotiating of treaties on virtually everything. Health, international trade and development, communications, transport, international trade of commodities, maritime law, commercial arbitration, telecommunications, the environment, and just about everything else you can think of.

The UN is just a bunch of countries that talk and forge agreements with each other. Multilateralism isnt easy and its a semi-functional group at best, but its important to have a venue where nations can have this type of dialog.

[Guest Peeves]

Well, by me, no country headed by a dictator should have other than 'Observer' status.

. This letter to The Post pretty well sums up my feelings.

Conrad Black proposes a variable system of voting rights dependent on “population, economic strength and objectively assessed respect for human rights.” Instead I suggest that only functional democracies with an independent judiciary, with scheduled or predetermined regular free elections and with elected opposition parties, all guaranteed and protected by constitutional rights, should be the only countries that can vote.

Deny all voting rights to dictatorships, elected or hereditary, rich or poor, populous or not. The UN has been degraded to nothing more than a democracy of dictatorships. Offer observation status only for these dictatorships. They will know what is expected of them if they want to participate. Shut down their voices till they do.

Jay Wortsman, Toronto.

I don't understand how countries with dismal Human Rights records can be named to head up Human Rights committees.

[Signals.Cpl]

The UN is usefull to humanity. Youre expecting to be something that it isnt. In one of your posts you mention a "strong and independant" UN, but thats not what it was ever meant to be. Its simply a venue where countries can sit down and talk and negotiate.

By strong and independent I mean an organization that does not depend on begging to run its missions, independent in the sense that it can do what is the will of the majority rather than the will of one nation(veto powers) when the UN is dependant on nations for providing troops, they end up not being able to provide the necessary services.

And the security and humanitarian aspects are only part of what the UN does.

The security aspect is the main thing that they should do, as the UN was created to prevent wars and so far it is failing miserably.

Its served as a platform for the negotiating of treaties on virtually everything.

Yet it fails in it's primary mission of keeping the peace around the world...

Health, international trade and development, communications, transport, international trade of commodities, maritime law, commercial arbitration, telecommunications, the environment, and just about everything else you can think of.

Many of those laws apply only to the Non veto powers...

The UN is just a bunch of countries that talk and forge agreements with each other.

Unfortunately it has failed miserably in its main job.

Multilateralism isnt easy and its a semi-functional group at best, but its important to have a venue where nations can have this type of dialog.

I understand that and I see that there is a significant need to restructure wether there is desire is a different question.

[dre]

Well, by me, no country headed by a dictator should have other than 'Observer' status.

. This letter to The Post pretty well sums up my feelings.

I don't understand how countries with dismal Human Rights records can be named to head up Human Rights committees.

Makes good sense to me. If you isolate these countries you lose all your influence, or worse, become a usefull scapegoat for the regime in charge. The modern approach is to engage these problem countries both diplomatically and economically and include them.

I supposed we could have a debate on whether inclusion has been more successful than isolationism, but you should have a hard time understanding why countries who are malicious actors in various ways are included in the UN.

[wyly]

The security aspect is the main thing that they should do, as the UN was created to prevent wars and so far it is failing miserably.

Yet it fails in it's primary mission of keeping the peace around the world...

Unfortunately it has failed miserably in its main job.

really?...how long has it been since WW2? 67years.. any conflicts of that magnitude since then that you can name?...it has prevented, reduced, and ended a number of conflicts since it's formation...we have civil/criminal laws to deter bad behavior but they'll never eliminate bad behavior if someone is determined to do so, and the same goes for international law and countries...

Edited July 4, 2012 by wyly

[wyly]

Well, by me, no country headed by a dictator should have other than 'Observer' status.

but you have no chance to modify their behavior if you don't interact with them...ignoring the dictator doesn't help the people of the country and the dictator won't care you're not going to hurt him or change his ways by kicking the country out...and then there those countries that seem to want a dictator/king like Swaziland do we have a right to dictate what kind of government they want?...

I don't understand how countries with dismal Human Rights records can be named to head up Human Rights committees.

I don't understand how we let countries like Israel defy international law in regards to it's illegal occupation and remain in the UN...if you want to punish one country you need to punish all equally, and if you do that there will be very few countries sitting in the UN and the entire thing becomes pointless...as distasteful as it is to deal with offending countries there is a need to talk to them in order to change their behavior...

[dre]

By strong and independent I mean an organization that does not depend on begging to run its missions, independent in the sense that it can do what is the will of the majority rather than the will of one nation(veto powers) when the UN is dependant on nations for providing troops, they end up not being able to provide the necessary services.

I agree in spirit with the VETO but as I said before theres a reason its there, and its actually to PREVENT conflict between UN signatories. The UN probably would not have lasted without it.

The security aspect is the main thing that they should do, as the UN was created to prevent wars and so far it is failing miserably.

Its only one of the important things they do, and its your own subjective judgement that its failed miserably.

Yet it fails in it's primary mission of keeping the peace around the world...

Global peace was one of its primary missions. The other one was to provide a venue for international dialog, from which all these other things emerged. You might not like it that security isnt the only thing that UN member states cooperate on, but thats just the way it is. Security is one of about a half dozen core UN objectives.

Wiki describes those stated objectives a bit here...

international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace

Many of those laws apply only to the Non veto powers...

Actually those laws apply to the signatories of each treaty and become part of each nations domestic laws. Not every nation signs each one. But the literally hundreds of treaties on all those things I mentioned have for the most part been ratified by all the major powers.

I understand that and I see that there is a significant need to restructure wether there is desire is a different question.

The balance of power at the UN will change when the balance of power in the world does. Large military powers would never have joined if they were to be put on par with island states with a jeep and 20 troops. They are expected to bear the brunt of UNSC enforcement, and the provide all the muscle and most of the cash.

THe idea of a UN army is a non-starter and will simply never work. The UN isnt supposed to be an entity on its own, and it never will be.

[Signals.Cpl]

really?...how long has it been since WW2?

It has been 67 years

any conflicts of that magnitude you can name?

I would put the reason for a lack of a major conflict the size of World War Two squarely at the feet of the USSR and the USA as they both posses and did possess enough firepower to destroy the world many times over and thus did everything possible to avoid such a war.

What does magnitude have to do with anything anyway? In the UN charter it never specifies which wars it should stop:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

nowhere in their charter does it to my knowledge specify that the UN was created to stop wars with more then X number of casualties...rather it was created to stop ALL wars, and seeing as it has failed miserably on that count I would say it has not done its main mission.

...it has prevented, reduced, and ended a number of conflicts since it's formation...

List 10 please...

we have civil/criminal laws to deter bad behavior but they'll never eliminate bad behavior if someone is determined to do so, and the same goes for international law and countries...

We do not actively and openly put people above the law, in Canada if you commit a crime the judge sentences you, wether I agree with the stiffness of the sentence or not is a different matter but when you are sentenced you do the time for your crime whereas in the UN the ICJ was created to settle intentional disputes, but if one of the parties does not abide by the ruling of the court the only recourse is to go to the UNSC and ask for a resolution to enforce the ruling...guess which nations are exempt from international law, Ill give you a hint, there are 5 of them.

[Signals.Cpl]

and then there those countries that seem to want a dictator/king like Swaziland do we have a right to dictate what kind of government they want?...

So is England a dictatorship because they have a Queen?

I don't understand how we let countries like Israel defy international law in regards to it's illegal occupation and remain in the UN...

Just like we let the US defy ICJ rulings and stay in the UN, because they can and no one can do a damned thing about it.

if you want to punish one country you need to punish all equally, and if you do that there will be very few countries sitting in the UN and the entire thing becomes pointless...

So you suggest punish none because they might not want to play with us?

as distasteful as it is to deal with offending countries there is a need to talk to them in order to change their behavior...

Its hard to look down on a dictatorship and tell them they have to abide by international law when there are nations we intentionally put above the law.

[GostHacked]

Well, by me, no country headed by a dictator should have other than 'Observer' status.

. This letter to The Post pretty well sums up my feelings.

I don't understand how countries with dismal Human Rights records can be named to head up Human Rights committees.

There is no election process when it comes to the UN. These people are put in power by other people who possibly were not elected to their own positions either. No country should have a sole veto right where they can veto against the rest of the council.

The UN is not a democratic entity and by design, cannot spread democracy around the globe.

[Signals.Cpl]

I agree in spirit with the VETO but as I said before theres a reason its there, and its actually to PREVENT conflict between UN signatories. The UN probably would not have lasted without it.

Please explain that one, as the way I see it, the UN would have been and can be more productive and efficient without the veto power.

Its only one of the important things they do, and its your own subjective judgement that its failed miserably.

I'm paraphrasing but article 1 of the UN Charter states prevent wars, maintain peace and improve security. And I can see a number of UN failures such as, Sudan, Rwanda, Somalia, Cyprus, Burundi, Egypt in 1956 and every other attempt in the middle east since, FYR, Kosovo(If it wasn't for NATO nothing would have happened), Dozens and Dozens of other African conflicts that were ignored because we all know no one values the African lives least of all the UN.

Global peace was one of its primary missions.

I would know when there is Global peace as I would be out of a job, and I look forward to that day...unfortunately it will not come in my lifetime or the lifetimes of my kids or grandkids.

The other one was to provide a venue for international dialog, from which all these other things emerged.

You are right, to provide a venue for dialogue to prevent conflict everything else is secondary in nature to maintaining and keeping peace. After the horror of WW2 the charter was designed to show the experiences of the war and avoid them in the future only later did the UN become all about feeding the children and giving them education and healthcare only to let them die as child soldiers or sex slaves for the militias.

You might not like it that security isnt the only thing that UN member states cooperate on, but thats just the way it is.

You may not like that your doctor is a crappy doctor but he is a damn good cook...

Security is one of about a half dozen core UN objectives.

Look how well it works out when there is no security, if the security situation on the ground is bad then all the other "core objectives" fail as a result. Feeding the children and providing them with healthcare doesn't really make me sleep soundly at night knowing they will just die in a pointless war or as a result of any number of other easily preventable security issues.

Actually those laws apply to the signatories of each treaty and become part of each nations domestic laws.

ICJ has no authority over the US, England, France, China or Russia... they could decide to participate and accept the ruling but those 5 nations have no obligation to accept the ruling yet they are the same 5 nations that will be enforcing ICJ ruling over other nations.

But the literally hundreds of treaties on all those things I mentioned have for the most part been ratified by all the major powers.

And it means absolutely nothing if the enforcement process is tilted in such a way that a few nations do not have to abide by the court but can force others to abide by the same court over the same or similar issues.

The balance of power at the UN will change when the balance of power in the world does.

Thats why we need to remove the veto power, and expand the UNSC, include the new powers like India, Japan, Brazil and Germany, as well include more voted positions based on region.

Large military powers would never have joined if they were to be put on par with island states with a jeep and 20 troops.

Yeah, but right now the issue is not military powers, it is economic powers.

They are expected to bear the brunt of UNSC enforcement, and the provide all the muscle and most of the cash.

What do you mean by enforcement? The 5 veto powers rarely send troops on the ground for obvious reasons, while I would say the main contributor of military equipment would be the US in my opinion while the main contributor of manpower are third world countries there for the $1,000 dollars a month per soldiers rather that for the good of the organization.

THe idea of a UN army is a non-starter and will simply never work.

It can work, it has to be large enough to provide for most mid-sized missions yet not large enough to let UNSG to feel like Napoleon. 100,000 Lightly armed Peacekeepers/Unarmed Military observers supported by 50,000 heavily armed force to deal with enforcing the peace when it becomes obvious that there is no peace to keep.

The UN isnt supposed to be an entity on its own, and it never will be.

The UN IS an entity of its own, it shouldn't be controlled by any one nation, and at the moment it is controlled by 5 nations who can for their own reasons shoot down every resolution and for example the US which provides a good chunk of the funding can control the UN by restricting the funding.

[Signals.Cpl]

There is no election process when it comes to the UN. These people are put in power by other people who possibly were not elected to their own positions either. No country should have a sole veto right where they can veto against the rest of the council.

The UN is not a democratic entity and by design, cannot spread democracy around the globe.

You are 100% right, when a vote can be 14 for and 1 against and the one against wins than it is not a democratic vote.