Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What course should the United Nations take?
New leadership 0 (0%)
New leadership and reorganization from the top down 6 (42.9%)
New leadership, reorganization from the top down and add a permanent military arm for enforcement 2 (14.3%)
The organization should be dissolved and the doors closed permanently 2 (14.3%)
Dissolved and replaced with another kind of organization 4 (28.6%)
Other 0 (0%)
Total Votes: 14
The future of the United Nations?
Topic Started: Nov 30 2004, 08:19 AM (661 Views)
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes

At this point the UN needs to be gutted, reorganized and Annan needs to “resign” aka told to leave the UN for allowing the mismanagement of the UN oil for food program in Iraq to take place.

It is still unknown to what extent Kofi Annan was involved with the oil for food scandal. At worst, he orchestrated the mismanagement and had his own hands in the cookie jar. At best, he is inept and his lack of administrative abilities is an embarrassment.

And now this business with Kofi’s son Kojo. LINK


I still believe in the UN. I think the diplomatic benefits of having such an organization is enough to keep the UN in place. To me, it is obvious that the organization cannot continue as is though. It is becoming a breeding ground for mismanagement and corruption. Something has to change.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The UN is a waste of time, resources, and office space.

If someone will hand me the keys, I'll start the bulldozer now.

P.S. I selected: The organization should be dissolved and the doors closed permanently
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
I voted for "Dissolved and replaced with another kind of organization." But what would such an organization entail? And how would its members be elected or chosen? Or is the entire idea outdated now?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

I voted for new leadership and reorganization. The existence of an international "legislature" and legal framework can be very useful for coming to a legitimate international consensus on various issues. However, it seems that the current structure has some problems. I don't think it is beyond reform though.
| Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Fesarius
Nov 30 2004, 11:17 AM
I voted for "Dissolved and replaced with another kind of organization." But what would such an organization entail? And how would its members be elected or chosen? Or is the entire idea outdated now?

It depends on what you have in mind, or what you want the new organization’s goal to be. Economic? Diplomatic? Militaristic? All of those. If you want an organization to be either diplomatic or militaristic (or both), it may be more cost effective to just reorganize the UN and change its overall mission (the basic infrastructure will still be in place). However, if you think the UN is corrupt beyond repair, then it may be easier to scrap the organization and start a new.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
24,

I would like to see a new organization which address all three of the points you bring up. How would the various members be chosen? (I'm ignorant here--I don't know how they are now chosen.)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Fesarius
Nov 30 2004, 12:41 PM
24,

I would like to see a new organization which address all three of the points you bring up. How would the various members be chosen? (I'm ignorant here--I don't know how they are now chosen.)

There may be others, but the fundamental requirement is you (the country) have to agree to sign and accept the obligations of the UN Charter to join the UN Organization.

I would imagine that another organization would have to be established in a similar fashion as was the United Nations. The biggest questions would be who would host the new organization, who would front the cost and who would help establish its goals, purpose, etc.

If a new organization were to be established I think it would base itself loosely on the UN. After all, the UN was loosely based on the League of Nations. That being the case, would it be worth creating an entirely new organization (instead of reorganization) when it is probably going to resemble the UN in many ways?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
24,

Thank you for the information. :)

Quote:
 
That being the case, would it be worth creating an entirely new organization (instead of reorganization) when it is probably going to resemble the UN in many ways?

Agreed. It does seem like it would not be worth the effort (to reinvent, that is). The energies ought to be spent elsewhere (within the structure itself, in whatever form it eventually would take).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Personal Response

I voted for new leadership and total reorganization from the top down.

For a long time, I believed in the UN because I thought, even when they failed, that they continued to provide some much needed humanitarian assistance around the world. An agency whose staff is willing to risk life and limb has to be admired.

Now, we are hearing stories indicating that isn't true. They have pulled out of areas for security reasons when other agencies and various countries have stayed to continue providing help. Their people have been accused of sexual assault in at least three countries that I've heard of (the most recent case involving 150 different charges) and the only punishment handed out was that the people involved were removed from the country.

Americans have long been used to the diplomats literally getting away with murder in New York City, but now it appears it's not a particularly safe place to work within its walls. Part of the staff recent "no-confidence" vote in its own leadership had to do with Kofi Annan "forgiving" people who had been found guilty according to the UN's own internal system. (These aren't criminal charges - they had violated company policy - including sexual harassment - and he simply "voided" the result of the internal inquiry.)

I don't favor the UN maintaining its own military force because of the simple question of "where" they would maintain it. I certainly don't want them on US territory or in US harbors on regular station.

I think the UN needs to radically downsize to become more of a clearinghouse of other agencies and diplomatic resources. It's the only way to not take sides with is what a true international peace keeping body has to do.

Rather than negotiating between the Indians and Pakastanis, let them be ready to call on the government officials of Canada, Austria, and Guam to create a negotiating team. (Random names pulled out of the air.)

Some countries could spearhead negotiations, some humanitarian aid, and some military peacekeeping. Right now, some of the small success that is being seen in African hotspots is because the Africans themselves are doing the "fixing". What is interesting about the situation is that the US and several other countries are providing logistical support because those African nations do not have that ability although they do have troops they can put on the ground.

I don't think it matters though because the UN now has power that it is not likely to let go for any reason. The result will be an ever increasingly ineffective organization or that it will simply implode in a crisis. Neither are good results.

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I added new leadership, organization from the top down and a military arm to enforce.

The main problem with the UN (in my opinion) is that they have no teeth. They can make any decision they want, and pass any international law they want, but if members of the security council don't want to abide by them, there is no way for the UN to enforce the rules they and their members made.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
The Sisko
Nov 30 2004, 02:29 PM
I added new leadership, organization from the top down and a military arm to enforce.

The main problem with the UN (in my opinion) is that they have no teeth. They can make any decision they want, and pass any international law they want, but if members of the security council don't want to abide by them, there is no way for the UN to enforce the rules they and their members made.

Would it be a mercenary force in your mind? Would they be able to draft anyone? Who would be obliged to provide troops? Who would lead them? Etc?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Too bad one of the options isn't "Crushed like a bug."

24?


Just a thought :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Agreed. Any solution to world problems that does not involve unilateral, preemptive action is by definition incorrect.
| Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I think the UN security force should be made up of member nations. Each nation has a separate division, so there won't be any problems with nationalism getting in the way of the desired goal. The force is lead by the Security Council, and to simplify matters, a CnC should be elected amoung the Security Council themselves.

Just my idea, please take into account that I am not an expert in military matters, just posing my ideas.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Nov 30 2004, 01:47 PM
Agreed. Any solution to world problems that does not involve unilateral, preemptive action is by definition incorrect.

So, when has there ever been unilateral preemptive action, smart guy?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus