| 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: |
| The future of the United Nations? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 30 2004, 08:19 AM (663 Views) | |
| 24thcenstfan | Nov 30 2004, 03:02 PM Post #16 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
That would fall under the category of "Other." :rolleyes:
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 30 2004, 03:26 PM Post #17 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
New leadership and clean house... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Nov 30 2004, 03:30 PM Post #18 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
I actually like that idea. I am not comfortable with the UN having its own military force either. If the UN was streamlined and designed to act as a project manager or coordinator, instead of trying to assume many roles (roles that they are not equipped to handle…such as enforcement), then more would be achieved IMO. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Dec 1 2004, 02:22 AM Post #19 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
I would remove the veto status and abolish permanent member status for some countries (all those who currently have it.) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Dec 1 2004, 02:27 AM Post #20 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Why not - isn't this exactly what the USA does in other countries. Think of all those soldiers and sailor from other countries roaming about the country side absorbing your culture and spending money. Could it be that you fear the possibility of the USA loosing it's current military supremacy if the UN had its own fully capable military that was responsible to the UN ONLY and so not under the control of one constituent / contributing nation ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Dec 1 2004, 04:18 AM Post #21 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
And what would happen to members of this military if there was a UN resolution for military action in their own country? You realize that the countries that contributed the largest percentages of soldiers would be practically exempt from having that military force take action against them. If ordered to attack their own country, they will give the UN the collective finger and go home to fight. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Dec 1 2004, 06:42 AM Post #22 |
|
Admiral
|
I dont believe the UN should have its own military forces, but it should be more willing to call on member states to take actions. I would favour a change to the composition of permanent members of the council and the removal of their veto power. Instead give them 2 votes. Despite the reduction is status of my own country it would entail I would suggest that in the 21st Century there should only be one European permanent member, not two. Either that or France and Britain stay on but only have 1 vote each. Europe has 2 votes but they are "splitable". Also I would alter the UN charter so that it makes clear that it is unacceptable to continue abusing human rights within your own country and that the UNSC has the authority in such cases to take action. That would have allowed a humanitarian case to be formed for Iraq as well as on based on WMD. I think the concept of the UN is important to keep because of the experience of the last time we tried to have individual nation states negotiating with each other with no international framework. We ended up with competing blocs and millions dead on the killing fields of the first world war. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Dec 1 2004, 06:50 AM Post #23 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
They should make some kind of oath to the Peoples of Earth and their representatives (the UN) and become regarded as "Citisens of Earth" rather than just citisens of their native countries, - so they are part of the action with their allegance to all humanity rather than one country , or they would be excluded from the action and disarmed while the action is happening (to ensure they don't mutiny and change sides). Participation in the action by them should be made strictly voluntary on a unit by unit basis in any case. Perhaps becoming a Citisen of Earth would become a very high honour and have great privileges - like a Citisen of Earth Passport allowing residency and working right anywhere they chose, very much reduced taxes and automatic eligibility for scholarships for their children who would automatically become citisens of Earth, etc. Contributing forces should not exempt them from being acted against should this become necessary , granting exemptions would only lead to some very powerful countries acting against humanity with impunity, purely because of their power and influence and contribution - a bit like now. Less powerful counties might well benefit from UN having a BIG STICK (or the BIGGEST STICK AROUND) that they are WILLING TO USE , without fear or favour. Securitywize, economically (they could tender to provide bases and infrastructure for UN garisions , fleets , and air forces) , and by establishing industries to service the UN. The UN headquarters could also move regularly (every 5 or 10 years) and a bidding system much like that for the Olympics might be instituted so other countries have chance to share in the economic benefits of having 10s of thousands of highly paid UN beaurocrats and diplomats residing with them - they all spend money - and lots of it, are a source of international revenue, and use and purchase local goods and services (everything from toilet paper to luxury cars and homes) . It is unreasonable that the UN headquarters remain in the USA to the USA's economic benefit. (Why else do you think no USA administration has seen fit to evict the UN from their current headquarters ? too lucrative and too good a cash-cow ). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Dec 1 2004, 08:08 AM Post #24 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Who defines what human rights are? What if a bunch of countries use their majority in the UN to declare some such thing a violation of human rights when it is a normal part of another culture? It is kind of subjective and leaves the door open for one culture or group of like-minded cultures to force its values on another. I don't know why France should have such a dominant position in the UN. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Dec 1 2004, 08:10 AM Post #25 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
I wonder if it is an economic benefit to New York City to have the UN headquartered there. So, we have the cities willing to pay the UN the biggest bribes get the headquarters? Not to mention moving this giant bureaucracy and it's staff every so often. Why don't they just buy and island from some one? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Dec 1 2004, 09:46 AM Post #26 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Oh I don’t know I guess it starts with the possibility that as a US Citizen a person could be committing treason if he or she (as a member of the UN Military) were to levy war against the US. Which is basically what would happen if the UN were to take action against the US. It would probably require a Constitutional change giving up supremacy rights to the UN. The legalities of that situation would be a nightmare.
Then you would have to deal with divided loyalties, the cost to member states for helping to maintain a military force that won’t even be designed to specifically protect your boarders and where they would train (Wichita brought that point up). Yes, giving up supremacy in military matters to a transnational force does concern me. The US military exists solely to protect me, my fellow countrymen and by extension our allies. I don’t think I would ever be able to say the same about the UN military. In addition, we (the member state) would be paying to maintain this military force knowing full well that that force could be directed at us (the US) someday at the whim of the UN. There are a lot of problems associated with the UN having its own military. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Dec 1 2004, 10:05 AM Post #27 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response
Absolutely true ... and for all countries, not just the US. In order for a UN military force to be effective it would have to be more effective than the country currently strongest militarily. (Tough to get recruits if they know its a lost cause going in.) Maintenance costs would be outrageous - forget the start-up costs. Say that you do have this force ... how are they going to help if they are split into dozens of hotspots and then the big-bad USA decides to get out of line? As to the economic benefit to having the UN in New York ... I don't doubt that a study has been done somewhere that compared the economic benefit of the same land being used for high rise office buildings as what it is currently used for now. I don't know that it really matters though - based on what I have read of the headaches caused by so many people with diplomatic immunity, I don't doubt NYC would be glad to see them go for that reason alone. By all means - move them around. End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 1 2004, 11:12 AM Post #28 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Then why didn't you say "all countries" when you actually meant the US. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Dec 1 2004, 12:03 PM Post #29 |
|
Admiral
|
We already have a definition, its called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it was adopted by the United Nations in 1948. The trouble is it is not enforcable. I think there should be a strong European voice on the UNSC and that 'Europe' should have a permanent member. After all Europe is larger in population and about equal in economy to the USA. At the moment there are two European permanent members, GB and France, which I think is over representation. Either you cut that down to one, in which case the problem is which one, perhaps rotating being European nations, or you keep GB and France but we only get half the normal vote of a permanent member. My suggestion is that permanent members get 2 votes but no veto, they have a big voice but not a automatic ability to block. If each permanent member had two votes, GB and France share 1 each because we are smaller. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 1 2004, 02:19 PM Post #30 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
"Europe" has two members with veto power, Britain and France. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



3:19 AM Jul 11