Thread: Restructuring the United Nations

The Security Council should honestly just be done away with, fuck reform. Like you said, it was a post-WW2 model and it serves no relevance today except to hinder development. If this is supposed to be a Global Caucus then there should be a vote and veto given to every single nation to force compromise on global affairs. If they are not working toward complete compromise, they are not a UN.

If the US really does plan to veto palestine they're throwing away the lives of anyone who has ever fought for freedom in the entire Middle East Conflict. Not that they care.

Obama's sure been acting like a fucktard of late. The whole excuse he gave for his actions (or threatened actions at least) was like some kind of parody... 'the road to peace is a long one'. Therefore we will delay the road to peace. Right.

Despite all of the election rhetoric, he stands to alienate the Middle East even further. Europe on the other hand, and the UN as a whole, is doing a good job, and the Arabs are reciprocating.

Originally Posted by Xei

Obama's sure been acting like a fucktard of late. The whole excuse he gave for his actions (or threatened actions at least) was like some kind of parody... 'the road to peace is a long one'. Therefore we will delay the road to peace. Right.

Despite all of the election rhetoric, he stands to alienate the Middle East even further. Europe on the other hand, and the UN as a whole, is doing a good job, and the Arabs are reciprocating.

Yeah I never wanted to punch him in the face so hard as he gave that spineless excuse. His road to peace is to let the israelis kill and outbreed the palestinians until there are none.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I'm not really familiar with the inner workings of the UN, and I'd like to learn more. I think the UN is a brilliant organization, an official forum for all the world's nations to voice grievances and plans for prosperity (as well as a soapbox for Ahmadinejad's comedy routine). That being said, I am deeply disturbed by the ongoing existence of permanent Security Council members and their veto powers. This archaic post-WW2 practise seems entirely contrary to the UN's egalitarian and impartial nature.

I've been following Palestine's application for full membership at the UN and the United States' promise to veto any attempt. Now I'm not the biggest supporter of Palestine, but I especially detest Americans meddling in foreign affairs (see most posts in the "What do you dislike about the US?" thread). The fact that they have the ability to veto an action that takes place on the other side of the globe with no national implications to the US is baffling.

The UN Security Council needs some serious reform. I can understand the importance of having the world's most powerful countries playing an active role in world security, but they shouldn't have such wide and dominating powers over the rest.

Well if you despise the US meddling in foreign affairs, then why do you support the UN? It just seems so antithetical to what you value.

Well the UN is a joke as long as they have the security council that basically controls everything. Until they get rid of them, it will always be a joke.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The Security Council should honestly just be done away with, fuck reform. Like you said, it was a post-WW2 model and it serves no relevance today except to hinder development. If this is supposed to be a Global Caucus then there should be a vote and veto given to every single nation to force compromise on global affairs. If they are not working toward complete compromise, they are not a UN.

The security council has a legitimate purpose. Notice the lack of large-scale wars lately? It'd also be much too cumbersome to have every nation on the security council. I say do away with veto powers at least, and add members. I'm on the fence as to if permanent members are a good idea or not.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well if you despise the US meddling in foreign affairs, then why do you support the UN? It just seems so antithetical to what you value.

Because the UN is supposed to be able to reach a worldwide consensus of what is best for humanity, the US is mostly looking after its own interests at the expense of others (Iraq, Grenada, Vietnam).

There would have to be a really serious humanitarian crisis for me to advocate armed intervention by foreign states, but I do believe this situation can exist. For instance I agree with NATO's current involvement in Libya and I wish the UN would have done much much more in Rwanda (a popular topic here since a Canadian general was commanding UN forces there at the time). So in short, my beef isn't with intervention but the motives behind it.

Also the Security Council can intervene non-violently (sanctions, etc.) or act as a mediator, playing world cop should be a last resort.

Originally Posted by Alric

Well the UN is a joke as long as they have the security council that basically controls everything. Until they get rid of them, it will always be a joke.

The UN gets a lot done outside of the Security Council. The General Assembly goes over international politics, you have organs presiding over world economics and justice, the WHO, UNICEF, etc. Lets not bash the whole UN for one squeaky tile.

The Security Council is too vulnerable to act like a bully in its current form. Without veto powers, it retains this capacity as members can push for intervention via simple majority rule. It enables a select handful of nations to help themselves while pretending to gauge the international interests of the entire world. More members would be a start but every single decision in the SC appears to have as much dirty politics behind it as any other government institution.

I'm not saying it's an absolute evil though, like you said there are plenty of times where international intervention is necessary. I just think this should take the role of real international consensus rather than single minded interests.

The rest of the UN is fairly corrupt as well. Of course a lot of the countries making up the UN are also corrupt, so it probably isn't a surprise.

That's sort of my problem. Why should one corrupt country get to have the say over what happens in another? Even if they need help, the help being offered always seems to be backed by some financial agenda.

Granted it's pretty hard to claim the world should do nothing while dictators are committing genocide against their own people.

The UN, under the guidance of it's "Security Council" chair, the United States, established the state of Israel, which caused all of the shit that Israel/Palestine is facing today.

If they refuse to let Palestine in, they are working AGAINST a problem they created in the first place. The Security Council needs to be dissolved.

Well, you have to have bear in mind the situation at the end of WWII. They didn't have the benefit of perspective then; it's understandable. Now of course we do, so denying Palestine statehood would be truly ridiculous.

Which is one of many reasons I advocate Palestine as an addition to the United Nations. You're right, it would be ridiculous to exclude them.

I'm sure SOME people thought that it would be potentially bad to redraw national boundaries as reparations for the Jewish, but they weren't as powerful as those who wanted sway in the Middle East.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Because the UN is supposed to be able to reach a worldwide consensus of what is best for humanity, the US is mostly looking after its own interests at the expense of others (Iraq, Grenada, Vietnam).

There would have to be a really serious humanitarian crisis for me to advocate armed intervention by foreign states, but I do believe this situation can exist. For instance I agree with NATO's current involvement in Libya and I wish the UN would have done much much more in Rwanda (a popular topic here since a Canadian general was commanding UN forces there at the time). So in short, my beef isn't with intervention but the motives behind it.

Also the Security Council can intervene non-violently (sanctions, etc.) or act as a mediator, playing world cop should be a last resort.

Well there is no way to actually reach a worldwide "consensus" of what is best fore humanity because what is "best" isn't quantifiable and diplomacy (or the lack of it) does not necessarily construe a zero-sum game (The U.S. wins at the loss of another nation). Granted I think the U.S. does a lot of bad things that harm other nations in an attempt to maintain its global empire.

Onto your "beef" section. So you actually don't necessarily detest U.S. forces meddling in the foreign affairs of other nations, you just dislike flimsy excuses. On the point of your "non-violent" intervention, of course embargoes and sanctions are violent. During the 1990's the US carried out their sanctions on the Iraqi people and 500,000 children died because of it.