Reforming the United Nations

Is the United Nations in need of reform?

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Don't know / Prefer not to respond

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
It is apparent from comments by the membership of Canadian Content, on both sides of the spectrum, that the United Nations are in desparate need of reform in order to keep any sort of support and respect from the populations of nations on Earth. Perhaps it would be prudent to foster a discussion on ideas and suggestions for the reform of the U.N., after which we can decide on our favourites, and formulate an action plan on how to get the word out on the debate that is to have taken place here.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
The UN can't possibly do anything constructive while the permament members of the security council sabotage the organization. The UN is only as good as the leadership demonstrated by the countries who hold the power.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Kreskin, then that is a good point; do you perhaps have any ideas or suggestions on how we could reform, or decommission, the Security Council? I would agree that the permanent members having override power over the rest of the nations of Earth is perhaps an inappropriate way for the organization to be governed.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Then perhaps, jimmoyer, we should do away with the practice of having permanent members of the Security Council. I would think it somewhat self-defeating to have a handful of permanent members who can each veto each resolution out of the United Nations, on a permanent basis.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Tinker with it FiveParadox and it will be a lot more
worse and a lot more ineffective.

I'd leave the Security Council alone, as is.

There might be a case for Brazil and India to
become permanent veto power members, but
other than that I'd rather keep the crap we got
than the worst crap we will most assuredly beget
by the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Rather I would toughen up the publicity of audits,
just to keep matters honest.
 

Lineman

No sparks please
Feb 27, 2006
452
7
18
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Combine France and UK into one "Euro" chair and add India, Brazil and Saudia Arabia as permanent members. Remove the Veto but have a 14 of 16 majority requirement. (roughly 87%). 6 permanent members, 10 others on same type of rotation.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Possibly re-write the charter with more definition related to global security resolutions and responses. Have everyone re-sign.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
I think no matter how you tinker with the charter
you will still have the same procedural nightmares.

So you change this game of checkers
to this new game of chess.

Different rules.

But you'll still have the same people playing the game again.

Forgeddabout the makeup of the Security Council.

Venezuela will oppose Brazil. Pakistan will oppose
India. And Japan and Germany will wonder why Russia
whose economy is no bigger than the Netherlands is
still on the Permanent Veto Council. And France will
oppose its own separate seat being threatened.


Instead...

I'd like audit reform and publicize all the glaring
bureaucratic mistakes and inefficiencies and corruption
and waste.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Jim, that's the deliberate smokescreen right now to screw up the UN. That isn't a solution it's a problem. I equate that to Bush's whining about the media. Deflect the issues to some crummy nonsense that in the big picture means nothing.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
The UN has been reformed many times since its inception, I don't think the UN is dysfunctional because of its structure and machinery, but rather it's deep political disagreements. And yet it's serves its purpose to a certain extent.

Even in Bush's arrogance when he decided to "go it alone" in Iraq, he went back to the UN because he realized it could help rebuild. Blue helmets have a degree of legitmacy around the world, whether some of us like it or not.

I would think the first thing that needs reform is the UN Human Rights Committee. It must become an effective force in advancing human rights, a good start would be not appointing dictatorial regimes to chair the Human Rights body.

Increase the risk and stakes and perhaps smaller countries would have a more vested interest in its success, by means of distributing funding for the UN more equitably.

Non democratic nations should not be allowed in the UN, immediate sanctions should be imposed and the blue helmets should go in and restore law and order. Period. One nation at a time.

The UN should have a limited but effective armed forces of its own, it currently relies on member states for its forces at the expense of those states. They should recruit people from all over the world.
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
I think creating a quick reaction army all to itself as a U.N army to be deployed to locations that need it no matter if the opposing parties agree or not would be perfect, and this force would not be restrained by the political forces of the Security Council if direct evidence of genocide or war between different nations would be good.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Nations do not like there soldiers getting killed while wearing Blue Helmets. It does not take much for a nation to yank it's troops once a few are killed. Just like the Belgians in Rwanda. Once their soldiers were killed they pulled out pretty quick.

A quick reaction army. OK that would mean thay this army would have to be based somewhere together and train together to have any real fighting skills. Who wants a UN Army within their borders? Then you will have to have a massive sea and air lift capability. How many nations have that?
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,336
66
48
51
Das Kapital
Having a UN army isn't the worst idea in the world. That is, if people want to enlist specifically for the purpose of serving under the UN.

Of course, there are hundreds of hows and what ifs, but the actual idea isn't that bad.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
And where will this army be based and trained?

It would never be allowed in the US.

Would Canada want to take in?
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
They can easily (just a thought) reant bases in hot spots all over the world, or a couple in each continent that makes sense. It isn't a bad idea. Think about it.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
It is a good thought but units need to train together in secure areas to be able to gell together and work as a team. On the job training in combat is not always a good idea.

Units have to make sure they are using the same weaponry to minimize supply problems. Multiple languages among the troops would be a problem. You would have to overcome the problem of intergrating the troops to make units that are mixed. I believe to be effective you could not have same nation units... a US unit, a Canadian unit, an Chinese unit (lol as if China would help). They IMO would need to be mixed together and speak the same language to form comraderie.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
You're right Eaglesmack I'm sure there are plenty of logistical issues to be tackled. But I think it is worth the effort. I also think this shouldn't be implements until the oppressive governments are ousted, just they know they're on the list. Larger countries may tumble (China, Vietnam) etc. eventually. Someone in the UN has to take a stand. We have to start from somewhere.
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,336
66
48
51
Das Kapital
Re: RE: Reforming the United Nations

EagleSmack said:
And where will this army be based and trained?

It would never be allowed in the US.

Would Canada want to take in?

Dunno. Brussels?