UN Reform - YOUR proposals

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menilmontant1948:
Otherwise, people have mentioned the ineffectiveness of the UN over Iraq and have seemingly labelled the whole organisation as such - surely this is a reflection of deficiencies in the Security Council? To label the whole thing as a waste of time is to ignore the good work that the other branches of the UN do.

---

Interesting thread. I'd like to hear of the good work that has been done by other branches of the UN. In the important areas the UN is either useless, as in the current crisis' in Iraq or Sudan or actively damaging, as in Kofi Annan and the UN's precipitation of the mass slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis by Hutus in a three month genocide in 1994 that ranks as one of the most shameful episodes in all of human history.

One big problem is that the UN is entirely ruled by the self-interest of its member states. In this regard, it is merely an extension of the corruption and political self-interest that governs individual countries and, actually, always has. Morals and ethics play little or no part in international politics except for the occasional attempt by various governments to try to persuade their own or the citizens of other countries that they do. Generally, a quick look at the 'balance sheets' behind a political situation is enough to illuminate the truth of a government's stance on a particular issue.

I doubt that the UN can ever be a real 'force for the good' until this situation changes. Whereas, individual humans will often act altruistically, countries do so less often and groups of countries hardly ever. However, as we have to start from where we are and a quantum expansion of human consciousness is, perhaps, beyond the scope of this thread, here on my thoughts on the discussion so far:

I wouldn't want to see the UN disbanded. Despite it's catastrophic shortcomings, it provides some hope for the future and it's just possible that things would be even worse without it.

I very much like JohanR's suggestion that only democratic states be allowed as members. I'm interested to know the source of this idea, Johan. Is it your own or something that you've read? Either way, I believe it could be a big step in the right direction.

As Menilmontant1948 points out, the UN is officially in international territory and thus location is mostly irrelevant. However, moving it away from the US would probably be counter-productive as would the suggestion (presumably a joke) that the US should be excluded.

What is required is a strong UN leader who could exert influence on the World's only Superpower, not exclude it. Such leaders are, sadly, in rather short supply.

Steve M

Steve

A strong UN leader would be effective only if he or she was able to remain aloof from self-interest while exerting influence over the superpower. I would suggest that the US is in a strong position because of the single-minded pursuit of their national interest. The moral paucity of the might-is-right approach would eventually infect such a leader.

I agree that the Rwandan genocide was one of the most shameful episodes in all of human history. Foreign aid and humanitarian agencies did not help much either.

Deane

I very much like JohanR's suggestion that only democratic states be allowed as members. I'm interested to know the source of this idea, Johan. Is it your own or something that you've read? Either way, I believe it could be a big step in the right direction.

I considered this idea myself. But then realised that it would instantly exclude Oman, The Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait. Plus Saudi and Libya. And Pakistan.

OK, I also know it would exclude Zimbabwi, N Korea and a few other "undesirable" states, but I am not convinced "democratic" is the right discriminater.

But the "concept" of picking and chosing who can join the club and who can't, is crucial to the entire concept of the UN. It sets the foundations of what's acceptable.

So......what is acceptable?

Cheers

Don

quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

So......what is acceptable?

Cheers

Don

---

The original question was narrow enough to aim broad suggestions at - but this question is like asking, "why is there something and not nothing?"

But a good place to start when defining what is acceptable is:

a) Killing people is not acceptable.

b) Killing people as a way of telling off countries for killing people is not acceptable.

Deane

On the subject of reform within the international community rather than strictly within the UN, perhaps a clean slate on foreign debt might be a good start. Or even the removal of interest so that so much energy isn't soaked up merely servicing the loans?

Deane

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deane F:
On the subject of reform within the international community rather than strictly within the UN, perhaps a clean slate on foreign debt might be a good start. Or even the removal of interest so that so much energy isn't soaked up merely servicing the loans?

---

We must first put a stop to the corrupt subsidies that throttle the economies of many poor countries. The EU's Common Agricultural Policy is an obvious example but there are others in Japan, Korea, Switzerland, Norway and the USA. These subsidies prevent 3rd world countries from competing on the world market and, as long as they are in place, many poor countries cannot service their existing debt and will just build up new debt.

Steve M

[This message was edited by 7V on Sun 05 December 2004 at 10:37.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deane F:
But a good place to start when defining what is acceptable is:

a) Killing people is not acceptable.

b) Killing people as a way of telling off countries for killing people is not acceptable.

---

Deane,

The use of force is justified in cases of self-defence or the defence of others (for example Britain's involvement in WW2).

I would also say that humanitarian intervention, such as that in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosova (none of which involved national self-interest), can justify the use of force.

Steve M

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:
Deane,

The use of force is justified in cases of self-defence or the defence of others (for example Britain's involvement in WW2).

I would also say that humanitarian intervention, such as that in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosova (none of which involved national self-interest), can justify the use of force.

Steve M

---

Steve

Who decides what is "humanitarian" or "justified"? The presupposition in your argument is that the answer to this question is always clear. I do not think that is the case.

I think it is an error to think of the world in terms of a community of nation states. The principle of sovereignty means that each nation is a discrete set and there is no universal set. Much as the UN tries to overcome this basic relaity, I suspect it's failures are rooted there.

Deane

U.N. Money-for-Peace Scam May Force Annan to Resign
by Scott Ott

(2004-12-02) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan today vigorously denied allegations that he has overseen a complex, fraudulent scheme to pilfer billions of dollars from 191 nations under the guise of providing "global peace services."

U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-MN, said "this money-for-peace scam stinks even more than the oil-for-food scandal which funded Saddam Hussein's murderous regime."

"To state it simply, the U.N. doesn't deliver the peacekeeping services it promises, yet it continues to cash the checks from member nations," said Sen. Coleman. "It's a global Ponzi scheme, taking money from one nation to cover obligations to another and ultimately producing nothing but paychecks and perks for an army of phony diplomats and lazy bureaucrats."

Mr. Annan brushed off suggestions that he should step down, and insisted he has fulfilled his role of fostering global peace by "holding meetings, eating in fine restaurants and speaking very softly in a charming accent."

from scrappleface.com

I thought you should be told.
Steve M

Old news, 3 days in fact, and I think we should be reminded that under successive Yankee Regimes they've no where near ever paid their owed dues to the UN, ensuring their own superiority and never allowing the UN to function properly in a truly DEMOCRATIC manner, probably got it from the Brits. Talking shop, camel is a horse designed by a commitee, you cannie have it both ways, ie "How can yer have any puddin, if yer dinnee eat yer meaT ß stOP******

Pish: I rarely agree wizth the Chief with his constant de-escalation attitudes and methods, but on the UN question I see no alternative, give it teeth, or live in Crawford, Arkansas, or Bejing, it's your choice in reality peoiple, innit.

Fritz Vonm Bloody good drop of claret this

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menilmontant1948:

I think you are conveniently forgetting the fact that the situation in Iraq was fabricated by the US and UK by ignoring the Security Councils rulings.

---

And what did the UN do about it?

Absolutely

nothing.

Useless, toothless, frightened to offend the big countries.

Big boys' games; big boys' rules. I thought the UN was formed to stop that particular morality informing world politics.

Deane

Menilmontant1948

Whatever is decided by all of the nations working within an accepted legal framework.

Who are "all of the nations"?

Can ANYBODY join (or do they have to meet certain criteria eg democracy?)

What do we do when a nation fails to maintain the agreed standards (assuming we have any)

Should the UN interfere with a nation that doesn't want to join, and sets its OWN standards eg systematic killing of an ethnic minority, state-sponsored murder, an biological weapons development programme targetted at a member state (or non-member state)

Is the UN a talking shop or an action body

Does it concentrate on hunanitarian aid (and become a super Red Cross?)

Does it enforce peace, or maintain peace

How would you suggest any bright ideas get brought to the attention of the UN reforn committee?

By all means point out what's wrong with the current UN, but if possible (and I accept that its an enormous an difficult task) suggest a few reforms.....

Cheers

Don

PS the above isn't directed at Menilmontant1948, we can all join in....

quote:

---

I considered this idea myself. But then realised that it would instantly exclude Oman, The Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait. Plus Saudi and Libya. And Pakistan.

OK, I also know it would exclude Zimbabwi, N Korea and a few other "undesirable" states, but I am not convinced "democratic" is the right discriminater.

---

I have a little problem in discriminating between some of the states mentioned in your first paragraph and the ones in the second. Saudi, for example. Even if Qatar might be considered an example of having an "enlightened despote". But it's still not a democracy.

I'm aware of there being an us and them problem with only allowing democratic states in the UN. There must probably be some kind of obvious gain in being a member (free trade?). Compare to our European Union (that can be considered a peace project, first and foremost), states are knocking on the door to come in AND are willing to do internal changes to be able to. Like Turkey at the moment.

No, the idea isn't exactly my own, I heard it on a (rather good) political program on the Swedish Radio, but at my age I can't remember who said it.

JohanR,

I appreciate that your proposal was that only democratic (democracies) states be allowed to join.

My point is that this would rule out places like Oman, UAE, Qatar etc and I would be willing to allow Oman, UAE and Qatar etc to join.

So in my proposal I couldn't use the term "democracy" to discriminate.

I would guess that most people would also be quite happy with Oman, UAE and Qatar etc?

Cheers

Don

Purpose of the UN

The initial complement of the UN should be existing members

The first purpose of the UN should be to set acceptable domestic standards of moral, legal and tollerant behaviour, by the governments of member states. To be drafted by the current security council and voted on by the full menbership until it acheives a 75% yes vote.

Non-compliant members to be given 12 months to comply or leave.


The second purpose of the UN should be to set acceptable international standards of moral, legal and tollerant behaviour, by the governments of member states. To be drafted by the curent security council and voted on by the full menbership until it acheives a 75% yes vote of the members compliant with domestic standards.


The third purpose of the UN would be to ensure the security of member states through a security council, by policing the above standards and imposing its will by enforceing the above standards on both member states and non-member states first by diplomacy, then by economic sanctions and finally by force.

The permanent security council to be enlarged to 10, but the veto members to remain "as-is"at 5. Rotating non-permanent members (say 20) to the security council to serve 24 months. Resolutions to require a simple majority, unless veto-ed. After 2 veto-ed failures at a resolution, a simple majority of the vet members to decide.


Subsidiary roles of the UN could include the provision of humanitarian aid.


We can fill in the details (what constitutes acceptable standards) later.
Cheers

Don

quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
... So in my proposal I couldn't use the term "democracy" to discriminate.

I would guess that most people would also be quite happy with Oman, UAE and Qatar etc?

---

I'm sure this will stir up another hornets' nest but actually I would not be happy to have Oman, UAE and Qatar, etc. being the determinants of what's right and wrong in international governmental policy.

These countries are all repressive regimes. A useful guide (and I'm sure someone's going to give me the reasons why this organisation actually comprises a collection of viscious self-serving fascists) is Freedom House. They publish a list of countries with ratings for their 'political rights', 'civil liberties' and overall 'freedom rating'.

The test that leading dissidents within the former Soviet Union used to determine whether a country generally upheld human rights was simply to ask the following questions:

1. Could people in that country speak their minds?

2. Could they publish their opinions?

3. Could they practice their faith?

4. Could they learn the history and culture of their people?

It's no surprise that only truly democratic countries pass this test. I for one wouldn't want those countries that don't pass to be telling my country, the UK (which does), how it should or shouldn't act.

That would make about as much sense as having Libya chair your Commission on Human Rights.

Steve M

quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
_Purpose of the UN_

...

---

Don,

I think that this post has much to commend it. If you could incorporate the human rights points above, we could deal.

Steve M

quote:

---

I would guess that most people would also be quite happy with Oman, UAE and Qatar etc?

---

The problem with non democrtic states is that "good" ones can suddenly turn into "bad" ones without the people of that nation having anything to say or being able to reverse it. Iraq, before Sadam, would have made your list!

Don, I read your proposal after this and it's basically OK with me.

JohanR

quote:

---

... observe November 29th, the annual U.N. Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, which is the only U.N. day dedicated to a specific people. The occasion was held in the U.N.'s elaborate Trusteeship Council before hundreds of delegates. At the front of the room sat the secretary general, the president of the General Assembly, and the chair of that main U.N. body, the Committee on Palestinian Rights. In a repeat of previous years' performances, beside them stood a U.N. flag, a Palestinian flag, and in between, a map in Arabic pre-dating the existence of the U.N. member state of Israel...

---

from National Review Online

I'm not familiar with the National Review Online (which I assume is an American publication from right of centre) but even taking this into account, this can't be right can it?

Steve M

Don

Where are the people in your proposal?

The second purpose of the UN should be to set acceptable international standards of moral, legal and tollerant behaviour, by the governments of member states. To be drafted by the curent security council and voted on by the full menbership until it acheives a 75% yes vote of the members compliant with domestic standards.

How does the UN promote democracy by arbitrarily setting "acceptable international standards" without going to the people that live in the countries of the world?

Do you propose that the UN sets these standards and then holds the legislative chambers of the countries of the world to ransom if they do not act on the "standards"?

Your proposal seems to promote a UN dictatorship.

Deane

Health warning! YOU refers to ANYONE reading this. It is NOT an aggressive threat towards Deane.. or anyone else.

Where are the people in your proposal? ..

This is a good question. Lets start by asking where are the people in today's UN? When did YOU last vote on whether to join/stay/leave the UN? When did you last vote on whether to send a peace-making force to Sudan? My memory may fade in certain areas, but I don't recall ever being invited to vote/comment on ANY aspect of UN existence/constitution/action. The UN has never featured as a (significant) part of any UK election manifesto either, so I've not even been able to indirectly influence the existence/actions of the UN (other than street protests/support). I have relied on our "democratically" elected, professional government to do all this decision-making for me!

As for the future....(remember, there are 6 billion people in this world today!)
In my proposal, the UN first sets out its first version of acceptable domestic standards of moral, legal and tolerant behaviour. These COULD for example, include a requirement for a (regular) referendum on joining/remaining within the UN. However, I visualise these basic standards being minimal and rather general, as opposed to prescriptive or detailed-descriptive. The standards are modified until acceptable to a good majority of states. States then either accept, or leave (and suffer the consequences). Whether states involve their people at this stage of acceptance, or act on behalf of their people, needs yet to be decided.

How does the UN promote democracy by arbitrarily setting "acceptable international standards" without going to the people that live in the countries of the world?

As you see from above, I didn't use, or imply, the word "arbitrary". Someone "drafts" proposals; members discuss, amend and vote and keep doing so, until a good majority accept. My position is that; good rules, supported by 85% of the "population" are enforceable. These are not arbitrary rules, they are well thought out, well supported rules. As for going to the people that live in the countries of the world.... well, again as you see above, democracy doesn't have to function on endless referenda. (I'm sure you manage quite well in NZ by electing a group of professionals to sort out your laws and rules etc for you, rather than having a daily (or hourly) gathering in Christchurch). There are 6 billion potential voters in the world today, and we need a workable way of representing them. BTW, I suggested 75% first time round, but I don't think you get easily enforceable rules unless you have about 85% support. Your views are welcome on this as well.

Do you propose that the UN sets these standards and then holds the legislative chambers of the countries of the world to ransom if they do not act on the "standards"?

In a word....Yes. But I wouldn't use the word "Ransom". It's more like your government (presumably) has set speed limits. (I'm sure you didn't vote on each and every one). The government doesn't hold you to "Ransom" if you break the speed limit, but I'm sure they have (acceptable) ways of making you conform to the speed limits (education, reasonable speed-limits) and that they have (acceptable) ways of punishing you if you do break the speed-limit...

Your proposal seems to promote a UN dictatorship..

In a word.....No... I would not promote a dictatorship. If my proposals were to (inevitably) lead in that direction, I would want to change them. And this is one of the benefits of discussion.

Over to you (anybody).

Cheers

Don

I really hate to bring this to peoples' attention at this time of year but I'm so damn angry that I have to.

Sex scandal in Congo threatens to engulf UN's peacekeepers

If this was any other organization in the world the head would have to resign. Fuck the UN.

Steve M

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:
I really hate to bring this to peoples' attention at this time of year but I'm so damn angry that I have to.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1413501,00.html

If this was any other organization in the world the head would have to resign. Fuck the UN.

Steve M

---

Yes, unfortunately the real world can be disconcerting to us more comfortably
off can't it ! Do not blame the UN's Leadership, soldiers will be soldiers in
case you're not aware ? and please don't jump on me and accuse me of condoning
the fact (as you know I don't). If Kofi Anan resigns over such a trivial affair
(yes, in contrast to other aspects of UN responsibility it's trivial) and no
they're not able to control Government's around the world in case you didn't
know either ? so please save your 'anger' for the real culprits, and consider
how the problems can be solved in the real world.

Happy Holidays.

Fritz Von Wattabitch²

N.B. That report is some 4 months old by the way:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
Yes, unfortunately the real world can be disconcerting to us more comfortably
off can't it !

---

Would that be those of us who were brought up to think that it's wrong to rape and exploit young girls?

quote:

---

Do not blame the UN's Leadership, soldiers will be soldiers in
case you're not aware ? and please don't jump on me and accuse me of condoning
the fact (as you know I don't). If Kofi Anan resigns over such a trivial affair
(yes, in contrast to other aspects of UN responsibility it's trivial) and no
they're not able to control Government's around the world in case you didn't
know either ? so please save your 'anger' for the real culprits, and consider
how the problems can be solved in the real world.

---

"The case has highlighted the apparently rampant sexual exploitation of Congolese girls and women by the UN’s 11,000 peacekeepers and 1,000 civilians"

Yes, of course Fritz, it's trivial. Sorry. I'll ignore the 'peacemakers' and search for real culprits.

'Peacekeepers', for fuck's sake. What does it say about their mindset? And yes, very sorry but I do blame the leaders.

quote:

---

N.B. That report is some 4 months old by the way:

---

Yesterday's Times.