How to give the UN teeth?

[Machjo]

In another thread there was reference to the need to giving the UN teeth, but no specifics. So for those of you who think we need to give the UN or some other similar organization teeth, what kind of teeth would you give it?

I realize some want to replace the UN or at least revise it, but if so, then what kind of teeth would you want to give that organization?

Personally, what I would see would be the establishment of an international police forced, with a maximum of 100,000 well armed and equipped men at any given time, subject to international laws itself, built along military lines, and which would have as a mandate to destroy any government that violates international law.

 

[lone wolf]

Get rid of veto!

 

[Machjo]

As for the 100,000-troop maximum, the purpose would be to avoid having one government becoming too powerful. National governments would still be allowed to have their own police and military forces if they wished, and these could serve as supplementary forces when the UN force is out-manned.

But i do think some kind of maximum number ought to be enforced to avoid having too much power in the hands of one body.

Get rid of veto!

Agreed. But how does that relate to giving the UN more teeth? Do you think it needs more teeth and, if so, what kind of teeth?

 

[lone wolf]

As for the 100,000-troop maximum, the purpose would be to avoid having one government becoming too powerful. National governments would still be allowed to have their own police and military forces if they wished, and these could serve as supplementary forces when the UN force is out-manned.

But i do think some kind of maximum number ought to be enforced to avoid having too much power in the hands of one body.



Agreed. But how does that relate to giving the UN more teeth? Do you think it needs more teeth and, if so, what kind of teeth?

Veto is the prop that keeps the mouth from closing. How would it give the UN teeth? The mouth has to close first to use them.

 

[Machjo]

Veto is the prop that keeps the mouth from closing. How would it give the UN teeth? The mouth has to close first to use them.

Good point. First we have to give it a jaw before teeth are of any use. Get rid of the veto, and we give the UN a jaw bone.

But how would you give it teeth to complement that jaw? Similar to the OP, or some other idea?

A jaw without teeth isn't very useful. Gums aren't that painful.

 

[YukonJack]

How to give the UN teeth?


Become a vampire and give it your incisors right in their figurative neck.

 

[Machjo]

How to give the UN teeth?


Become a vampire and give it your incisors right in their figurative neck.

In other words, kill it? So who is the arbiter of international law and order, or do we just turn to the law of the jungle and international anarchy?

 

[Colpy]

In another thread there was reference to the need to giving the UN teeth, but no specifics. So for those of you who think we need to give the UN or some other similar organization teeth, what kind of teeth would you give it?

I realize some want to replace the UN or at least revise it, but if so, then what kind of teeth would you want to give that organization?

Personally, what I would see would be the establishment of an international police forced, with a maximum of 100,000 well armed and equipped men at any given time, subject to international laws itself, built along military lines, and which would have as a mandate to destroy any government that violates international law.

You DON'T give the United Nation teeth.....ever.

If there was a serious move to provide the UN with teeth, free nations would flee the organization like sensible rats from a ship sinking in a sea of tyranny.

(Almost poetic, wasn't it?)

And rightfully so.

The UN is NOT interested in the liberty of peoples, nor in justice.....only in stability.

Indeed, look at the make-up of the world's governments. Only about one out of four countries enjoys a free, democratic form of government.......so three out of four are less than free, and a about half of those are ruled by despots......Insanity to think of handing an armed force to a group in which Zimbabwe's Mugabe has the same say as the American president, or Kim of North Korea has the same say as Britain's Cameron, or Irans's lunatic President has the same vote as France's Sarkosy.......

Especially when you consider the Mugabes far outnumber the Camerons.

The idea of arming the UN is not only impractical (language, religion, national loyalties of the soldiers, standardization of arms, and on and on),,,,it is essentually a suicidal idea for the free nations of the world.

Take a LONG look at the UN Human Rights Commission if you doubt me on this.

 

[#juan]

Perhaps a mandate from majority of Security Council members could give authority to a UN military force.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Something that might be asked here is, "Do we really want the U.N. to have
more power & authority that it already does?"

If the U.N. gains more power & authority, and that is abused, what can be done
about it once that increased power & authority is in place?

Looks like I was a few seconds slow with my question....

 

[CDNBear]

You DON'T give the United Nation teeth.....ever.

If there was a serious move to provide the UN with teeth, free nations would flee the organization like sensible rats from a ship sinking in a sea of tyranny.

(Almost poetic, wasn't it?)

And rightfully so.

The UN is NOT interested in the liberty of peoples, nor in justice.....only in stability.

Indeed, look at the make-up of the world's governments. Only about one out of four countries enjoys a free, democratic form of government.......so three out of four are less than free, and a about half of those are ruled by despots......Insanity to think of handing an armed force to a group in which Zimbabwe's Mugabe has the same say as the American president, or Kim of North Korea has the same say as Britain's Cameron, or Irans's lunatic President has the same vote as France's Sarkosy.......

Especially when you consider the Mugabes far outnumber the Camerons.

The idea of arming the UN is not only impractical (language, religion, national loyalties of the soldiers, standardization of arms, and on and on),,,,it is essentually a suicidal idea for the free nations of the world.

Take a LONG look at the UN Human Rights Commission if you doubt me on this.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Machjo]

You DON'T give the United Nation teeth.....ever.

If there was a serious move to provide the UN with teeth, free nations would flee the organization like sensible rats from a ship sinking in a sea of tyranny.

(Almost poetic, wasn't it?)

And rightfully so.

The UN is NOT interested in the liberty of peoples, nor in justice.....only in stability.

Indeed, look at the make-up of the world's governments. Only about one out of four countries enjoys a free, democratic form of government.......so three out of four are less than free, and a about half of those are ruled by despots......Insanity to think of handing an armed force to a group in which Zimbabwe's Mugabe has the same say as the American president, or Kim of North Korea has the same say as Britain's Cameron, or Irans's lunatic President has the same vote as France's Sarkosy.......

Especially when you consider the Mugabes far outnumber the Camerons.

The idea of arming the UN is not only impractical (language, religion, national loyalties of the soldiers, standardization of arms, and on and on),,,,it is essentually a suicidal idea for the free nations of the world.

Take a LONG look at the UN Human Rights Commission if you doubt me on this.

Then what about some kind of World Federation of Democracies, which would welcome all nations that meet its minimum human rights standards (perhaps based on the current Universal Declaration of Human Rights), which would share such a force, and whose membership would be elected, either directly by the people, or at a minimum by national government that themselves have been elected by their people, or something of the sort. But otherwise keep the same principle of a maximum of 100,00 well trained and equipped men.

The UN would still exist but only as a consultative organization.

 

[lone wolf]

Good point. First we have to give it a jaw before teeth are of any use. Get rid of the veto, and we give the UN a jaw bone.

But how would you give it teeth to complement that jaw? Similar to the OP, or some other idea?

A jaw without teeth isn't very useful. Gums aren't that painful.

All it needs is a voice. Teeth would just put it in conflict with the folks who want to run the show.

 

[Machjo]

Something that might be asked here is, "Do we really want the U.N. to have
more power & authority that it already does?"

If the U.N. gains more power & authority, and that is abused, what can be done
about it once that increased power & authority is in place?

Looks like I was a few seconds slow with my question....

But what about the tyranny of countries that do not fear any kind of international law? Sure there's always NATO, but it does not exactly give an image of neutrality either.

All it needs is a voice. Teeth would just put it in conflict with the folks who want to run the show.

Of course it should bark first before biting. Biting without forewarning isn't fair of course.

 

[L Gilbert]

I don't particularly see a use for a UN other than as a venue for things like the World Health Organisation, the nuclear treaty organisation, a global court system, etc. to operate from. There are too many countries with too much self-interest involved to be any use to the other countries. It's like a den full of weasels eyeing each other and circling the one chicken in the coop.

 

[Machjo]

I don't particularly see a use for a UN other than as a venue for things like the World Health Organisation, the nuclear treaty organisation, a global court system, etc. to operate from. There are too many countries with too much self-interest involved to be any use to the other countries. It's like a den full of weasels eyeing each other and circling the one chicken in the coop.

Who's the chicken?

 

[CDNBear]

The UN would still exist but only as a consultative organization.

I would let them consult on identifying the colour of the sky.

 

[L Gilbert]

Who's the chicken?

It doesn't matter. The chicken would represent a number of things that countries want to grab for themselves and don't care which other countries they step on to get it. Oil, for instance.

 

[Machjo]

Or what about something based on NATO, whereby the NATO Assembly would be elected by the national assemblies, and its role would be expanded from a strictly military alliance to an international organization parallel to the UN.

Again the main problem I see with this is the history of NATO. It would be viewed by many as biased. But I suppose if it's name were changed and it were given a complete overhaul, it might be able to rehabilitate it image.

 

[YukonJack]

Machjo challenged my post advocating the demise of the United Nations thus:

"In other words, kill it? So who is the arbiter of international law and order, or do we just turn to the law of the jungle and international anarchy?"

Did we not have the "law of the jungle" under the United Nations:

In Rwanda? Ethiopia? The former Yugoslavia? In present day Russia? In Hungary in 1956? In Sudan? In Korea in the 50's? In Viet Nam in the 60's? How about the conflict in Sri Lanka? Indonesia?

Shall I go on?

Let us face it: The United Nations is an atavistic and anachronistic and totally useless entity doing nothing but occupying precious real estate in a country that they always and unfailingly stab in the back, whose parasitic representatives commit crimes with diplomatic inpunity and worse, park illegally, again with inpunity.

If they relocate to and take advantage of the unparalled amenities of some great democracy such as Cuba, or Senegal, or Zimbabwe, and make a go of it, I agree, let them prosper and flourish.