Replacing the UN with a real body with real teeth.

[petros]

Lets face it the UN is an antiquated, useless, undemocractic system that has a large influence on our lives.

There is no question about it, we are going to have a global government, a New World Order if you will.

The growing importance of globalization as a significant theme and the subsequent weakening of nation-states, pointing logically to the prospect of transferring to the global level the regulatory instruments no longer working effectively at the national or regional levels and the UN in it's cutrrent form just isn't going to cut the mustard as long as it remains undemocratic.

It is no conspiracy or misguided ideal that indicates the ineveitable.

It already started in the early 80's with GATT and is growing at a phenominal pace with WHO, IMF, UNESCO UNDP etc etc etc but you and I and the other billions of citizens of the global have had zero say in our future thus far.

Are we willing to allow it continue unchecked and undemcoratic or are we going to come together as people with similar goals to take back the control of our own futures?

How will the transformation from independant nation states to a unified global democratic body impact us as a whole?

Is it somethig you willing accept or will it be fought tooth and nail through decades of bloodshed?

 

[Colpy]

Lets face it the UN is an antiquated, useless, undemocractic system that has a large influence on our lives.

There is no question about it, we are going to have a global government, a New World Order if you will.

The growing importance of globalization as a significant theme and the subsequent weakening of nation-states, pointing logically to the prospect of transferring to the global level the regulatory instruments no longer working effectively at the national or regional levels and the UN in it's cutrrent form just isn't going to cut the mustard as long as it remains undemocratic.

It is no conspiracy or misguided ideal that indicates the ineveitable.

It already started in the early 80's with GATT and is growing at a phenominal pace with WHO, IMF, UNESCO UNDP etc etc etc but you and I and the other billions of citizens of the global have had zero say in our future thus far.

Are we willing to allow it continue unchecked and undemcoratic or are we going to come together as people with similar goals to take back the control of our own futures?

How will the transformation from independant nation states to a unified global democratic body impact us as a whole?

Is it somethig you willing accept or will it be fought tooth and nail through decades of bloodshed?

Simple.

Set up a body of democratic nations.........membership depending solely on their record of free and open democracy.........that way you know the people have some say in how their representatives vote.

You could perhaps even weight the influence of any representative's vote on the population of the nation they represent........say on a one to four scale...India gets four votes, Luxembourg gets one, like that. Not rep by Pop.....but at least the people are represented in the world body.

One could even set up preferential trade agreements among members.......make so there is an advantage to joining the club....no vetoes.....and throw out members that backslide......

 

[gopher]

''membership depending solely on their record of free and open democracy......''

Gee, that would disqualify the USA for supporting General Rios Montt, Islam Karimov, Suharto, Saddam, Marcos, etc.

 

[Colpy]

''membership depending solely on their record of free and open democracy......''

Gee, that would disqualify the USA for supporting General Rios Montt, Islam Karimov, Suharto, Saddam, Marcos, etc.

SOLELY on THEIR

reading comprehension problems?

The USA is a democracy, is it not?

(rolled eyes)

 

[Tonington]

So, if the UN is to be replaced, would it be wholesale replacement? And what happens to UN organizations which are criticial in the sharing of important information between nations, like say the Food and Agriculture Organization, or the World Health Organization. If you don't allow all in your club, who is going to lead investigations of emergin disease and epidemics?

It's actually not a simple matter at all.

 

[petros]

The idea of segregation based on borders and alleged status of one person over the other is the road block to an ingtegrated global society and it the basis of todays' hatred and animosity. If we are going to have a true global democracy, everyone is going to have to be equal.

To think it's simple and can happen overnight is jaded thinking but we're going to have to start somewhere.

 

[gopher]

''The USA is a democracy, is it not?''

It's foreign policies under the Republicans clearly show that it does not support democracy. Besides, Hitler came into power via democracy but his foreign policy wasn't too rosy, was it?

 

[Machjo]

And what can be done at the grassroots level?

Just to take an example, in 2004 I'd attended a World Esperanto Congress in Beijing, with participants from about 70 different countries, organized by the Universal Esperanto Association.

The UAE's leadership is in fact democratically elected by the membership, and literally anyone can become a member if he wishes. Add to that that since it uses a common easy-to-learn neutral language, it is therefore not dominated by any particular ethnic group.

Imagine if more people decided to join not necessarily the UAE but at least some equivalent organization. Suddenly the legitimacy of such organizations would grow, and should they attract a sufficiently large membership, they could pose a symbolic threat to the UN. Legally they would not be a threat since the UN has the backing of governments. Symbolically though, with a massive groundswell of public support, such NGO's would gain a certain moral authority.

Ever since the creation of the telegraph in 1844, there was no turning back from world government. Even Tennyson had foreseen this in his Locksley Hall, written in 1835 and published in 1842. Here is an extract:

For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;[SIZE=-2] 120[/SIZE] Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales; Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain’d a ghastly dewFrom the nations’ airy navies grappling in the central blue; Far along the world-wide whisper of the south-wind rushing warm,[SIZE=-2] 125[/SIZE]With the standards of the peoples plunging thro’ the thunder-storm; Till the war-drum throbb’d no longer, and the battle-flags were furl’dIn the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world. There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe,And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law.[SIZE=-2] 130[/SIZE]

Winston Churchill, who himself had read Locksley Hall and considered it to be "the most wonderful of modern prophecies", had penned the Atlantic Charter thus:

The Avalon Project : THE ATLANTIC CHARTER

The 'Four-Freedoms' speech given by Roosevelt, Churchill's contemporary, had also influenced, mainly via his wife, the writing of the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which also influenced the Canadian Charter of Human Rights by the way).

So clearly this awareness of mankind's interdependence is not new. Even as early as 1863, Baha'u'llah had penned in the Kitab-i-Aqdas:

"The world's equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind's ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System – the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed."

In the same book we also find this:

"
O members of parliaments throughout the world! Select ye a single language for the use of all on earth, and adopt ye likewise a common script. God, verily, maketh plain for you that which shall profit you and enable you to be independent of others. He, of a truth, is the Most Bountiful, the All-Knowing, the All-Informed. This will be the cause of unity, could ye but comprehend it, and the greatest instrument for promoting harmony and civilization, would that ye might understand! We have appointed two signs for the coming of age of the human race: the first, which is the most firm foundation, We have set down in other of Our Tablets, while the second hath been revealed in this wondrous Book."

In a later tablet, he reitirates it thus:

"

The sixth Ishraq is union and concord amongst the children of men. From the beginning of time the light of unity hath shed its divine radiance upon the world, and the greatest means for the promotion of that unity is for the peoples of the world to understand one another's writing and speech. In former Epistles We have enjoined upon the Trustees of the House of Justice either to choose one language from among those now existing or to adopt a new one, and in like manner to select a common script, both of which should be taught in all the schools of the world. Thus will the earth be regarded as one country and one home. The most glorious fruit of the tree of knowledge is this exalted word: Of one tree are all ye the fruit, and of one bough the leaves. Let not man glory in this that he loveth his country, let him rather glory in this that he loveth his kind. Concerning this We have previously revealed that which is the means of the reconstruction of the world and the unity of nations. Blessed are they that attain thereunto. Blessed are they that act accordingly. "

So clearly the idea of the inevitability of world unity is nothing new. The question is, will stand opposed to the inevitable, or shall we pick up the banner and lead the charge?​

 

[Bar Sinister]

In a sense what Petros wants has already occurred. In the last few major military operations the main contributors have been the members of NATO; almost all of which are democratic and many of which are superbly equipped. UN forces from other regions such as Africa tend to get sent to minor conflict areas where their poorly trained and ill-equipped troops are more capable of handling the situation. This is a de facto recognition that the UN has failed in its mandate of preventing and halting conflict, forcing NATO to step in and fill the void. I expect that all that is needed is to tie in a few other major powers such as Russia or China and there will be a parallel peacekeeping organization that is actually capable of doing the job the UN was intended to do. This may take some time and no doubt endless rounds of negotiation, but it will come in time if the major powers are really interested maintaining some level of conflict control.

 

[Trotz]

Lenin tried this concept,
mixing in centralization with ethnic liberation and it proven to be nothing more but a failure (after all, Stalin brought an end to the system, brought in the SSR and the new regional elites were able to stop the local rebellions). Turns out, even if you protect people's cultural rights; at the end of the day, they rather have the right to decide their own economic and political future.


The idea of promoting a Global Government is an idiosyncrasy, considering that there are countries in Europe that are barely functioning (Spain and Belgium), in North America (Canada), and if you go to Africa, most of those countries are just Tribal Democracies whereyn the strongest tribe always wins the national elections...

 

[petros]

''The USA is a democracy, is it not?''

It's foreign policies under the Republicans clearly show that it does not support democracy. Besides, Hitler came into power via democracy but his foreign policy wasn't too rosy, was it?

It was Until Wall St.took over. Is it time to try again peacefully or will it take total and complete anarchy to restore true democracy?

Lenin tried this concept,
mixing in centralization with ethnic liberation and it proven to be nothing more but a failure (after all, Stalin brought an end to the system, brought in the SSR and the new regional elites were able to stop the local rebellions). Turns out, even if you protect people's cultural rights; at the end of the day, they rather have the right to decide their own economic and political future.


The idea of promoting a Global Government is an idiosyncrasy, considering that there are countries in Europe that are barely functioning (Spain and Belgium), in North America (Canada), and if you go to Africa, most of those countries are just Tribal Democracies whereyn the strongest tribe always wins the national elections...

The same people that were a huge pain in the ass to Soviet Russia are still their biggest pain in the ass. Judging by the arms deals tossed to Ukraine as of late by NATO they will continue to be the biggest pain in the ass for Moscow.

We are going to have a global government with regional districts that were formerly independant nations whether we like it or not. The question remains what kind of socialist govt is going to be?

 

[Machjo]

It was Until Wall St.took over. Is it time to try again peacefully or will it take total and complete anarchy to restore true democracy?

The same people that were a huge pain in the ass to Soviet Russia are still their biggest pain in the ass. Judging by the arms deals tossed to Ukraine as of late by NATO they will continue to be the biggest pain in the ass for Moscow.

We are going to have a global government with regional districts that were formerly independant nations whether we like it or not. The question remains what kind of socialist govt is going to be?

Whoever said a world government would be socialist? Certainly socialism has its pluses, but so does capitalism. I'd imagine a world government that is not ideologically bound and is willing to put ideology to the service of the people and not the other way around. It would need to be pragmatically idealistic, not blindly idealistic.

And though I think we need a world government, I think an important component would be that it be very decentralized. Though I do believe a world police force to gradually replace national military forces would go far to promote peace and save much money too.

 

[petros]

Whoever said a world government would be socialist? Certainly socialism has its pluses, but so does capitalism. I'd imagine a world government that is not ideologically bound and is willing to put ideology to the service of the people and not the other way around. It would need to be pragmatically idealistic, not blindly idealistic.

And though I think we need a world government, I think an important component would be that it be very decentralized. Though I do believe a world police force to gradually replace national military forces would go far to promote peace and save much money too.

Erase the coonection between socialism and tryanical communism and you have what we've been living in North America for over 80 years now except today the capitalists are the tyrants and line up for the socialist payments like kids lining up to see Santa Claus.

The hand outs to the top have got to stop if you want a real capitalist free market society.

It is and will be socialist. It can't continue being as lopsided as it is without 85% of the planet coming for our heads.

 

[Cliffy]

It is and will be socialist. It can't continue being as lopsided as it is without 85% of the planet coming for our heads.

Would that be anything like in Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom where they all sit around eating live monkey brains?

 

[petros]

They'll starve to death!

 

[ironsides]

Erase the coonection between socialism and tryanical communism and you have what we've been living in North America for over 80 years now except today the capitalists are the tyrants and line up for the socialist payments like kids lining up to see Santa Claus.

The hand outs to the top have got to stop if you want a real capitalist free market society.

It is and will be socialist. It can't continue being as lopsided as it is without 85% of the planet coming for our heads.

What about the handouts to the bottom, we are losing our middleclass and soon their will only be rich and poor. Feudalism all over again.

 

[Trotz]

It was Until Wall St.took over. Is it time to try again peacefully or will it take total and complete anarchy to restore true democracy?

The same people that were a huge pain in the ass to Soviet Russia are still their biggest pain in the ass. Judging by the arms deals tossed to Ukraine as of late by NATO they will continue to be the biggest pain in the ass for Moscow.

We are going to have a global government with regional districts that were formerly independant nations whether we like it or not. The question remains what kind of socialist govt is going to be?

We may see a welfare state but one generalized to the global norm. A free pot of rice in form of welfare is considered a blessing in most countries of the 'Global South'.

Whoever said a world government would be socialist? Certainly socialism has its pluses, but so does capitalism. I'd imagine a world government that is not ideologically bound and is willing to put ideology to the service of the people and not the other way around. It would need to be pragmatically idealistic, not blindly idealistic.

And though I think we need a world government, I think an important component would be that it be very decentralized. Though I do believe a world police force to gradually replace national military forces would go far to promote peace and save much money too.

Indeed. The solution for world dominance is in the past in form of decentralization. This was the very same decentralization that allowed French, German and Russian kings to control vast territories; mind you there were no supersonic aircraft then, so the world was unimaginably huge back then (weeks and months to travel across these Empires - yet these Empires were otherwise stable).

To control the world you must control, or better termed, have the support of regional and local elites. Remember it is these same elites who, if annoyed, can rally others under banners of 'nationalism', 'race', 'religion', et al; and their association with the locals means they have always have the advantage over a far away centralized authority.

You can effectively ignore the 'peasants', there have only been a few peasant rebellions in modern history (i.e. 1848 rebellions) and none of them were successful to the extent of toppling a government. It's hard to mobilize mass support on a national scale (regional on the other hand) as peasants are otherwise too busy with primitive concerns, i.e. sex, football, cold beer in the fridge, et al.

Erase the coonection between socialism and tryanical communism and you have what we've been living in North America for over 80 years now except today the capitalists are the tyrants and line up for the socialist payments like kids lining up to see Santa Claus.

The hand outs to the top have got to stop if you want a real capitalist free market society.

It is and will be socialist. It can't continue being as lopsided as it is without 85% of the planet coming for our heads.

Not sure if I would want to live in a 'real capitalist free market'. A real capitalist free market would have our children work in coal mines.

Much like the opposite end; communism, I interact with feeble morons on a daily basis and wouldn't want to share capital with them if my life depended on it (Even syndicalism would be better than that but would be prone to the same errors, i.e. charismatic union leaders with hairbrain ideas). And then people would become plain lazy.

The best system we have at the moment is a corporate structure (economic fascism for a lack of better words) and is our system at the moment, in that the system is designed for the reproduction of the workforce and attaining the means of subsistence.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing in a well developed state with a high expectation of subsistence, i.e. in Canada, which is the suburb home, automobile, 2.1 kids, university education, et al. On the other hand, a pretty bad concept if you a labourer in Nigeria.

The problem with this system is that government has failed in enacting measures to allow workers access to the means of subsistence and hence the dissent within the system, with people become 'socialist' in outlook, even though it is not control of capital they want (which is what socialism and communism is) but access to the means of subsistence.


Government in that regard has failed, lack of protectionist policies means less job (hence no access to means of subsistence), likewise the entry of mass capital since the 1950s - means the employers only need to pay you enough to afford a mortage on the house, a lease on the car, et al, hence the dissent.

When 'things were good' back in the 1950s (when almost everyone had the means of subsistence and without a mountain of debt) - you would have had better luck finding a needle in a haystick than a Marxist in a countryside town.

 

[Praxius]

Just to throw something in the middle of all this:

One of the main reasons why the UN is so damn useless is because it's not Democratic. Any group that allows one, let alone more then one nation to hold a Veto over any vote and thus cancel out anything they please, for whatever reason, is useless. All that does is force people to either vote the way those nations want them to vote, or the whole thing gets canned and nothing gets done..... other then what those nations holding veto power wants.

Making an organization that only allows certain nations to join as members based on the criteria of the already existing member nations' way of life only allows for one type of voice to be heard, which also solves nothing, because if that was the case, why would any of the other nations who aren't allowed to join this special little club of self-righteous wank-jobs bother to listen to what this corrupt club wishes?

And that's the problem with groups like the United Nations...... If you want other nations to adopt Democracy or at least grow to appreciate it in time, then you need to not only get them involved, but remove roadblocks such as vetoes that compromise the democratic process.

And that's what a veto really is..... when you have a group of people vote for something that makes a majority, but all of their votes and their views can easily be cancelled out by one person holding veto power.... simply is not democratic, because everybody has to adhere to one dictator.

Do as I wish or I'll shut the whole thing down...... that's the bottom line.

Democracy when it's convenient.

If you allow all nations to attend, to speak their minds, to voice their concerns or ideas, regardless of if you agree or not..... and to allow all of those nations to freely vote/decide how they think things should be done, and if you don't have a couple of clowns who think they're higher and mightier then everybody else to hold veto power...... and if you actually adhere to what the majority voted for...... you might actually see some of these nations who have concerns of democracy start to see the appeal of it.

It's very similar to low voter turnout during elections.

It's not that the people who don't vote are not voting because those available to vote for don't represent their best interests. Sure it's a part of some people's reasons..... but it has more to do with believing that regardless of who you vote for, you believe nothing will change, everything remains the same, and your vote amounts to jack squat.

That's how I currently feel.

Now put yourself in the shoes of some of the nations viewing the UN where the US, Russia and a couple of others have veto power over anything voted on...... when you see such a ploy as that being setup, how can you possibly expect anything you wish to have done or taken seriously, other then what those holding veto power want to have done?

It doesn't seem democratic to me and I suspect it most certainly doesn't seem democratic to those nations you wish to eventually adopt democracy.

If the UN is their example to go by in regards to democracy, then no wonder.

 

[Trotz]

Just to throw something in the middle of all this:

One of the main reasons why the UN is so damn useless is because it's not Democratic. Any group that allows one, let alone more then one nation to hold a Veto over any vote and thus cancel out anything they please, for whatever reason, is useless. All that does is force people to either vote the way those nations want them to vote, or the whole thing gets canned and nothing gets done..... other then what those nations holding veto power wants.

The Obama administration has called to expand the PSC and veto-capable members. China was quite upset at that particular annoucement.
IMO, Obama and the Democrats are the second head of the same monster. The U.S., since it's recent violation of article 2(4) when it toppled Hussein's government, has since moved towards bilateral agreements (expanding the PSC would render the SC even more useless and thus more nations would disregard the U.N. and seek bilateral agreements. So much for Obama being the spawn of NWO!).

 

[eh1eh]

So if this new body has teeth then it would be able to bite anyone thus exerting more control over the world. I think some people like the Rockefellers etc, want this order for the world. A new world order...