UN Reform - YOUR proposals
Posted by: Don Atkinson on 30 November 2004
UN Reform - YOUR proposals
So, after 60 years, the UN feels the need for major reform.
It seems to accept the need for an enlarged permanent security council (but no increase in the veto members)
It seems to accept the need to intervene more aggressively in cases of genocide and ethnic cleansing
It doesn't want a sole super-power to act without UN backing
etc etc
Plenty of time for debate. Plenty of time to persuade your MP to act.
Mick P can't say "its all sorted, so stop whinging for another 60 years"....
How do YOU consider the UN should change and how do YOU suggest is the best way to influence people with YOUR idea(s)
Cheers
Don
So, after 60 years, the UN feels the need for major reform.
It seems to accept the need for an enlarged permanent security council (but no increase in the veto members)
It seems to accept the need to intervene more aggressively in cases of genocide and ethnic cleansing
It doesn't want a sole super-power to act without UN backing
etc etc
Plenty of time for debate. Plenty of time to persuade your MP to act.
Mick P can't say "its all sorted, so stop whinging for another 60 years"....
How do YOU consider the UN should change and how do YOU suggest is the best way to influence people with YOUR idea(s)
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 30 November 2004 by MichaelC
Disband itself.
It's beyond meaningful reform.
Mike
It's beyond meaningful reform.
Mike
Posted on: 30 November 2004 by Deane F
Surely the UN will only ever be as good as it's member nations?
A group which fails to make hard decisions about the misbehaviour of individual members can't complain when it eventually loses it's moral authority.
Perhaps the first reform should be the expulsion of the United States of America? That would show that the UN means business and that it won't tolerate member nations stepping out of line.
Deane
A group which fails to make hard decisions about the misbehaviour of individual members can't complain when it eventually loses it's moral authority.
Perhaps the first reform should be the expulsion of the United States of America? That would show that the UN means business and that it won't tolerate member nations stepping out of line.
Deane
Posted on: 01 December 2004 by Mick P
Chaps
The major failing of the UN is that it has lost the ability to make hard decisions which would breed them as warmongers.
Saddam totally messed them around for 12 years, he made them look like impotent rabbits. Bush and Blair got the results and that is how the UN should have acted in the first place.
The UN will only survive when it uses its muscle at the appropriate time. Currently it is nothing more than a waffle shop keeping a few hundred bureaucrats in a comfortable job.
Regards
Mick
The major failing of the UN is that it has lost the ability to make hard decisions which would breed them as warmongers.
Saddam totally messed them around for 12 years, he made them look like impotent rabbits. Bush and Blair got the results and that is how the UN should have acted in the first place.
The UN will only survive when it uses its muscle at the appropriate time. Currently it is nothing more than a waffle shop keeping a few hundred bureaucrats in a comfortable job.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 01 December 2004 by Deane F
Mick
I think it's untold thousands of bureaucrats in comfortable jobs rather than many hundreds.
The UN does have humanitarian programmes as well as peacekeeping programmes.
Deane
I think it's untold thousands of bureaucrats in comfortable jobs rather than many hundreds.
The UN does have humanitarian programmes as well as peacekeeping programmes.
Deane
Posted on: 01 December 2004 by Stephen Bennett
Get the USA to pay the UN what it owes them! 
Regards
Stephen
Regards
Stephen
Posted on: 01 December 2004 by matthewr
"Saddam totally messed them around for 12 years, he made them look like impotent rabbits"
That'll be Saddam who was comprehensively disarmed by the UN and had all his WMD programmes very effectively destroyed.
Matthew
That'll be Saddam who was comprehensively disarmed by the UN and had all his WMD programmes very effectively destroyed.
Matthew
Posted on: 01 December 2004 by Mick P
No
That was Saddam who was disarmed by the troops of the USA and the UK. This all happened whilst the usual bunch of wafflers just waffled how terribly awful it was.
The WMD issue was regrettable but the end result is that Saddam is decomposing in jail and we have a more secure oil supply situation.
Bush acted decisivly and as been rewarded with another term in office by the good sense of the American electorate who don't like pinkos and wafflers.
Regards
Mick
That was Saddam who was disarmed by the troops of the USA and the UK. This all happened whilst the usual bunch of wafflers just waffled how terribly awful it was.
The WMD issue was regrettable but the end result is that Saddam is decomposing in jail and we have a more secure oil supply situation.
Bush acted decisivly and as been rewarded with another term in office by the good sense of the American electorate who don't like pinkos and wafflers.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 01 December 2004 by matthewr
Er, Mick, it was the UN who disarmed Iraq. After the first, neccessary and UN mandated, Gulf war the troops pulled out and Iraq was disarmed by the UN.
The US and UK (and you) then said the UN had failed to disarm Iraq. They, and you, were wrong. The UN had done a difficult job very well and Saddam had no WMD capability or even a viable programme to develop one.
Matthew
PS To answer the original question, the key to making the UN work is the USA. If America does not take it seriously and continues to do whatever it wants then the UN will remain politically and militarily rather ineffective.
I predict that America will take the UN a lot more seriously in about 20 years round about when the Chinese are taking over.
The US and UK (and you) then said the UN had failed to disarm Iraq. They, and you, were wrong. The UN had done a difficult job very well and Saddam had no WMD capability or even a viable programme to develop one.
Matthew
PS To answer the original question, the key to making the UN work is the USA. If America does not take it seriously and continues to do whatever it wants then the UN will remain politically and militarily rather ineffective.
I predict that America will take the UN a lot more seriously in about 20 years round about when the Chinese are taking over.
Posted on: 01 December 2004 by JonR
Matthew,
I would venture to suggest that 'Gulf War II' occurred directly as a result of America failing to take the UN seriously and continuing to do whatever it wants!
What's changed?
JR
I would venture to suggest that 'Gulf War II' occurred directly as a result of America failing to take the UN seriously and continuing to do whatever it wants!
What's changed?
JR
Posted on: 01 December 2004 by Martin D
Yep disband
Posted on: 01 December 2004 by Don Atkinson
The US and UK (and you) then said the UN had failed to disarm Iraq. They, and you, were wrong. The UN had done a difficult job very well and Saddam had no WMD capability or even a viable programme to develop one.
Matthew.........
We only NOW know that Saddam had no WMD (even that isn't DEAD certain, but lets assume it is)
Saddam kept saying he did have WMD
The UN thought he might have WMD
Blix couldn't find any, but equally couldn't adequately account for their non-existance.
Even the French and Rusians thought that Blix might evenually find WMD, given more time.... etc etc
Not very convincing to find out that you had unknowingly managed to disarm Saddam!!!!
Cheers
Don
Matthew.........
We only NOW know that Saddam had no WMD (even that isn't DEAD certain, but lets assume it is)
Saddam kept saying he did have WMD
The UN thought he might have WMD
Blix couldn't find any, but equally couldn't adequately account for their non-existance.
Even the French and Rusians thought that Blix might evenually find WMD, given more time.... etc etc
Not very convincing to find out that you had unknowingly managed to disarm Saddam!!!!
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 01 December 2004 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Blix couldn't find any, but equally couldn't adequately account for their non-existance.
I'm sorry Don, but please help me to understand this comment. It sounds like you are saying that Blix was expected to prove a negative.
Deane
Posted on: 01 December 2004 by Don Atkinson
How do YOU consider the UN should change and how do YOU suggest is the best way to influence people with YOUR idea(s)Disband itself.
To date we have....
Disband itself......It's beyond meaningful reform.
Perhaps the first reform should be the expulsion of the United States of America?
The UN will only survive when it uses its muscle at the appropriate time
Get the USA to pay the UN what it owes them!
the key to making the UN work is the USA
Yep disband
My initial thoughts
Get the USA and everybody else to pay what they owe
Reform the funding system, to reduce the burden on the USA
Clearly define "acceptable" and "unacceptable" behaviour in member states
Very quickly isolate and embargo member states (and non-mamber states) who become errant, then implement military intervention soon after
Take rapid and decisive military action against genocide, ethnic cleansing, and the harbouring of terrorists and other specific conditions.
Accept "majority" voting of the 5 veto members of the permanent security council after (say) 3 failed attempts at a resolution.
And how do we influence decision-makers?
a generate better ideas on this forum
b debate them robustly
c sumarise the debate
d formulate the final ideas (including options and contradictory ideas)
e post them to Downing Street/White House/UN HQ with offer to send Matthewr and Mick P to present in person
Cheers
Don
To date we have....
Disband itself......It's beyond meaningful reform.
Perhaps the first reform should be the expulsion of the United States of America?
The UN will only survive when it uses its muscle at the appropriate time
Get the USA to pay the UN what it owes them!
the key to making the UN work is the USA
Yep disband
My initial thoughts
Get the USA and everybody else to pay what they owe
Reform the funding system, to reduce the burden on the USA
Clearly define "acceptable" and "unacceptable" behaviour in member states
Very quickly isolate and embargo member states (and non-mamber states) who become errant, then implement military intervention soon after
Take rapid and decisive military action against genocide, ethnic cleansing, and the harbouring of terrorists and other specific conditions.
Accept "majority" voting of the 5 veto members of the permanent security council after (say) 3 failed attempts at a resolution.
And how do we influence decision-makers?
a generate better ideas on this forum
b debate them robustly
c sumarise the debate
d formulate the final ideas (including options and contradictory ideas)
e post them to Downing Street/White House/UN HQ with offer to send Matthewr and Mick P to present in person
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 01 December 2004 by Don Atkinson
I'm sorry Don, but please help me to understand this comment
ISTR that the UN Inspectors' task was to account for WMD known to have existed, believed to have existed or claimed by Saddam to have existed. "Account for" could have included evidence of destruction or disposal or imaginary existance, or illegal storage
Blix was unable to either find WMD, or to adequately account for their disapearance/non-existance.
Cheers
Don
ISTR that the UN Inspectors' task was to account for WMD known to have existed, believed to have existed or claimed by Saddam to have existed. "Account for" could have included evidence of destruction or disposal or imaginary existance, or illegal storage
Blix was unable to either find WMD, or to adequately account for their disapearance/non-existance.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 01 December 2004 by Deane F
International agreements are not enforceable within a jurisdiction if the legislature has not incorporated the agreement into municipal law. Therefore the UN has no power other than persuasion.
"One World" is a nice idea but the real world is one of nation states.
Sovereignty is all important and cannot be overcome by a get-together of Nation States. IMO the concept of "sovereignty" is the absurdly misplaced premise at the heart of the UN's failures.
Deane
"One World" is a nice idea but the real world is one of nation states.
Sovereignty is all important and cannot be overcome by a get-together of Nation States. IMO the concept of "sovereignty" is the absurdly misplaced premise at the heart of the UN's failures.
Deane
Posted on: 01 December 2004 by Don Atkinson
IMO the concept of "sovereignty" is the absurdly misplaced premise at the heart of the UN's failures.
So your poposal for change is....?
Cheers
Don
So your poposal for change is....?
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 01 December 2004 by matthewr
Don said "We only NOW know that Saddam had no WMD"
That's not true. There was some doubt only becuase the US and UK governments kept telling us they had intelligence that strongly suggested there were WMD in Iraq. We now know they were lying (or at least flat wrong) and had no such intelligence.
Scott Ritter even wrote a book (before the war) detailing why Saddam couldn't have a credible WMD program. In retrospect he was dead right and it was only becuase of the Tsunami of progaganda for the opposite view that more people didn't realise at the time.
Matthew
That's not true. There was some doubt only becuase the US and UK governments kept telling us they had intelligence that strongly suggested there were WMD in Iraq. We now know they were lying (or at least flat wrong) and had no such intelligence.
Scott Ritter even wrote a book (before the war) detailing why Saddam couldn't have a credible WMD program. In retrospect he was dead right and it was only becuase of the Tsunami of progaganda for the opposite view that more people didn't realise at the time.
Matthew
Posted on: 02 December 2004 by Don Atkinson
Matthew,
The UN team under Scott Ritter withdrew from Iraq but was unable to demonstrate what the state of the weapons situation was. The media coverage suggested there were WMD.
Likewise Blix and the UN were totally unconvincing in stating and demonstrating there were no WMD. To the extent that their (lack of) actions might amount to gross negligence if they actually had categoric proof of no WMD.
Cheers
Don
The UN team under Scott Ritter withdrew from Iraq but was unable to demonstrate what the state of the weapons situation was. The media coverage suggested there were WMD.
Likewise Blix and the UN were totally unconvincing in stating and demonstrating there were no WMD. To the extent that their (lack of) actions might amount to gross negligence if they actually had categoric proof of no WMD.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 02 December 2004 by Mick P
Matthew
Saddam was a habitual liar and no one could believe a word he said.
Also for every strategist who said there could be no WMD, another one said there was.
Saddam would not give free and unrestricted access to the UN and there was no option but to go in.
Regards
Mick
Saddam was a habitual liar and no one could believe a word he said.
Also for every strategist who said there could be no WMD, another one said there was.
Saddam would not give free and unrestricted access to the UN and there was no option but to go in.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 02 December 2004 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
_IMO the concept of "sovereignty" is the absurdly misplaced premise at the heart of the UN's failures. _
So your poposal for change is....?
Cheers
Don
My proposal is that the UN's ineffectiveness will not be changed by any manner of reform.
The UN relies on cooperation. Therefore the only effective reform would be to improve the cooperativeness of all of the member states.
I'm not sure what repercussions would follow on enlarging the number of veto partners to the security council, but the idea intuits well. I haven't thought about it enough.
Deane
Posted on: 03 December 2004 by JohanR
My proposals:
- Only democratic states allowed as members (decision on who is democratic is done by the members of the UN).
- The headquarter should be somewhere else than NY US. Preferably a neutral place (where can that be?).
JohanR
- Only democratic states allowed as members (decision on who is democratic is done by the members of the UN).
- The headquarter should be somewhere else than NY US. Preferably a neutral place (where can that be?).
JohanR
Posted on: 03 December 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Oooh Vienna
Posted on: 03 December 2004 by Don Atkinson
Re-locate the UN
It had crossed my mind to suggest Delhi.
But it gets a bit hot in the summer.
So then I thought that in the winter they could all move up to Simla......
Cheers
Don
[This message was edited by Don Atkinson on Fri 03 December 2004 at 22:29.]
It had crossed my mind to suggest Delhi.
But it gets a bit hot in the summer.
So then I thought that in the winter they could all move up to Simla......
Cheers
Don
[This message was edited by Don Atkinson on Fri 03 December 2004 at 22:29.]
Posted on: 03 December 2004 by Roy T
Move the UN to the Antarctic, they do have a good treaty managing the place and it sure would help cool some of the hot heads!
Posted on: 03 December 2004 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by Roy T:
Move the UN to the Antarctic, they do have a good http://www.polarlaw.org/ managing the place and it sure would help cool some of the hot heads!
Treaty or not, the US sees fit to dynamite crevasses and build a road across the ice to save money on all the flying. I'm glad Ed Hillary spoke publicly on the matter while in Antarctica recently - which pissed off the Americans.
Deane