How Should UN Be Reformed?

[greenknight]

One of the nagging doubts I have about generally supporting a body like the UN is that I cannot specifically support the UN as it has been structured. A couple of my concerns:

1. The Security Council does not reflect a broad geographical constituency. There are no representatives from South America or Africa, only one country from the Western Hemisphere, and 3 are from Europe (if you count Russia as a European nation). There needs to be a broadening of the council to include at least one nation from each continent and to include new international players. I would nominate Brazil, Argentina, Canada, Germany, India, Japan, Australia, South Africa, Turkey, and Israel to bring the total to 15 members.

2. The Security Council veto needs to go. In a world of such vast complexity, complete agreement is an impediment to real consensus. It's like 80 senators voting for a bill and 20 senators being able to defeat it by voting no. I would require a supermajority of either 60% or a 2/3 vote (9 or 10 votes in my 15 member council) to ensure a broad consensus without having any one country being able to sabotage an entire resolution.

3. The general assembly is a disheartening array of delegates from countries with no respect for any humnan rights. There needs to be rules that prohibit countries with these human rights abuses from obtaining any positions on the myriad committees of the UN. This would mean that Iraq, Libya, or Uzbekistan could not ever rotate into the Human Rights Committee (or any committee) until they demonstrated that they are in line with the numerous conventions and accords governing respect for human rights.

Is there anything else that the DU would change? Are there any problems with my thoughts, or an expansion on them? Just wondering.

[Darranar]

1. I agree with your basic idea...

but I disagree on the details.

What i would do:

1. Eliminate the Security Council entirely.

2. Get rid of the "one country, one vote" concept, and instead base every country's power in the General Assembly dependent on population, with penalties to power if human rights and political freedoms (including the right to vote) are not respected. Rules for such things need to be compiled and followed.

3. Establish a second "house" of the UN, which would be a multiparty parliament system where everyone in the world would vote for a party.

[Maple]

2. LOL

If it's based on population, the US is SOL.

[Darranar]

3. SOL?

I'm not familiar with that abbreviation.

[Maple]

4. It means

Shit Outta Luck.

[Darranar]

5. Well...

I'm not sure that that's true. India doesn't have a very good record when it comes to human rights, and neither does most of the other countries above the US in population. The US might be the most powerful country in the UN that I envision, though its power would certainly be reduced.

[Maple]

6. Up against China and India

the US is piffle for population.

And if it's the biggest countries that rule...in either land size or population, the US wouldn't have anything to say about human rights.

[Darranar]

7. First of all, it's population, not land size...

second of all, this would be incorporated into the UN Constitution. Those nations with large populations but pathetic human rigts records would start out without much power.

[Maple]

8. Well as I said

if it's determined by population, then the US is out of the running.

And you can't put something in the UN constitution if the other 'bigger' countries don't want it there.

A country small in landmass and population can't just insert whatever it wants.... if size is your criteria.

There have been hundreds of ideas put forth for changing or reforming the UN...but they all founder on the very same reasons that caused the set-up to be the way it is in the first place.

[Darranar]

10. Actually, you can...

because until the Constitution takes affect, population doesn't matter.

Anyway, I'm completely aware that in the present world situation, creating a UN like this one would be impossible. My only point is that that would be the ideal model.

[Maple]

11. There won't BE a constitution

if other nations don't agree to it.

And they wouldn't.

So the US would be sitting by itself in a big empty room.

The UN can be changed anytime the countries involved agree on it...the trick is getting the majority to agree.

[Darranar]

13. Once again...

in the current world situation, it would be impossible.

[Maple]

14. Well.....

I dunno if the 'current' situation prevents it.

People have been trying to change/update/improve it for years.

It just keeps hitting the same old snags.

I think everyone would jump at a solution that got around them, and satisfied the majority.

[Darranar]

15. A few things that might facilitate change:

An end to totalitarianism in China (and North Korea, but that's not important.)

A calming down of Islamic fundamentalism (not going to happen until Bush leaves office.)

A break in the corporate control of our government (unlikely anytime soon, unless someone like Kucinich gets elected and re-elected.)

[ant]

17. corporate control might be a good thing...

...well, not really, but it's probably something that in this case works in favor of international cooperation. When India and Pakistan start getting snippy with each other it's the computer software industry that gets nervous, putting pressure on India to chill out or risk losing investments. Having your eye on the bottom line is bad when you ignore environmental or labor concerns, but its good when it means you ignore the sex or race of the employee before you or power struggles between nations.

Companies want to make money, and the more markets/cheaper labor/resoures they can get to, the better. It usually does not help them to have nations bickering. War may be good for defense industries, but that's it. (Well, maybe the media, too...)

[Darranar]

18. No, actually it wouldn't...

The UN is an institution that can efficiently combat globalization. The corporations realize that.

The recent war in Iraq benefitted several corporations, but didn't really hurt any. Only now are those workers in Iraq open for cheap labor.

Additionally, the more aid the poor countries get (from the UN) the harder it is for the globalized corporations to influence those countries. This hurts them badly. (For instance, you don't see thousands of workers working for little pay in almost any developed country.)

World war, or war between two economic powers, or a war in which a powerful economy is runied, does hurt corporations. However, war to pursue global dominance of a country like the USA only benefits those multinational corporations, since these days the US is under corporate control.

ant: Why do you think the US went into Iraq?

[ant]

21. I agree with that

...but I also agree with what I said. :) I think you have to examine the role economics and therefore corporations play on a case by case basis. In the case of India/Pak, the influence of corporations was essentially good. In the case of Iraq, it was bad. You make a good point about development and how that impacts cheap resources, though. I hadn't thought of that.

As for your question, I don't doubt that oil and the contracts and the rest had *something* to do with US motives, but I really think it's somewhat simplistic to call this whole thing a "war for oil." I think the US went into Iraq because the neocons reallly did believe it would be a starting point for reforming the middle east in a way that was favorable to US interests. Yes, that includes economic interests, but also political and military interests. Not only is it good for us to have oil-rich allies, it's good for us to have oil-rich allies in that part of the globe, close to Russia and China. We're basically spreading out our footprint to effectively compete with not only those two but the emerging power of the EU as well.

[Darranar]

23. Oh, I agree...

My point is, though, that the war in Iraq is indeed a first step in a quest to re-create the middle east in Anerica's image. (Okay, maybe that's a bit extreme, but I hope you get the point.)

Anyway, about political and military interests: Which ones?

Clearly, attacking Iraq will add leverage to any threat against an Arab nation. However, what will that do? Terrorism won't stop if the nations feel threatened; it is not a military problem, as in a problem which one can solve by overwhelming force, but rather a domestic problem in the Arab states.

If the US wants to reduce terrorism, it must address the root problems that cause terrorism. Those root causes include complete lack of social and monetary equality in the Islamic states, especially in places like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. This grievance is an excellent niche in which terrorist organizations can step in and blame western imperialism for the whole thing, which is, of course, an exxagerated claim, but not without basis.

Basically, my entire point about corporate control is that US imperialism helps corporations far more than it hurts them. That includes wars for US imperialism, like the war in Iraq.

[ant]

9. hmmm

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you or if you're misunderstanding the UN.

The Security Council does not reflect a broad geographical constituency. There are no representatives from South America or Africa, only one country from the Western Hemisphere, and 3 are from Europe (if you count Russia as a European nation).

It seems like you're talking about the SC permanent members, the big 5 nuclear powers. The SC as a whole has members from all over the globe at one point or another; they rotate through. Here are the current members:
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_members.html

If you want to change the rules for who gets to be a permanent member, what would you change them to? If you want to eliminate permanent members completely - a move that I support in principle - what'll happen is those powerful nations will abandon it. A sad reality, but a reality nonetheless.

Ditto on point 2. I believe only the 5 permanent members have veto power. Again, take that away and they will walk.

On point 3 the problem becomes who decides? We can all agree that there are certain countries with obvious human rights violations - but what about the US death penalty? There are plenty of nations out there that would consider that grounds for keeping the US out of the GA. If that happens, we walk. Yes, it's bizarre to see a country like Iran heading up the disarmament committee (I think it was them), but the reason that happens is because the UN has to be seen as not taking any sides. Would it make more sense for the US to take charge of that committee? Obviously Iran (and probably many Americans) would laugh.


The UN is far from perfect, but it's good enough for now. By keeping the powerful nations in we keep the institution running, and this gives smaller countries a voice (not to mention the wonders the UN has done on development/social issues around the globe). Also, over the long term you're builing norms that people come to accept as a fact of life. What besides a belief in the UN was reflected in those US polls last winter about the US getting UN support for its war in Iraq? We don't have to pay attention to the UN on shit, but people have grown accustomed to building consensus on the international stage, and that gives the UN legitimacy. Over time it will also create the right environment for giving the UN more power by giving smaller nations more power, even at the expense of bigger nations. (This is where most people break out with their fears of world government and the rest, but it's really not such a terrible idea. It's not perfect, but nothing is.)

Anyway, the point of this rambling is that I agree that it's not always fair, but it is practical and even effective, and that counts a lot.

Edited because I switched thoughts mid-sentence, never a good thing...

[Maple]

12. I'd agree with this assessment

on the whole.

Altho you did sign the constitution agreeing to how things operate.

The fact that Bush chose to violate international law notwithstanding.

[ant]

16. I signed what where now?

If you're talking about the US and others agreeing to this setup in the first place, I'll repeat what I said before: it was the only way to get anywhere at all. A UN SC with 5 permanent members holding veto power is, I think, probably better than no UN at all, which is what would've happened had we not all agreed to this setup.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. I agree with most of what you said there...

But I doubt the five permanent members of the SC would walk out on the UN if veto power and permanency was taken away. They'd make a lot of noise, but they wouldn't leave. The UN can't survive without them and they can't do without the UN. If the US had been going to walk out of the UN, it would have done so long ago, given its almost pathological hatred of what it sees as international attempts to curtail its sovereignty. But even under Bush that hasn't happened, and we're seeing now that the US does need UN help...

One of the problems with the UN has always been that it's seen as the the flagship of internationalism and collective security, but that every member state is there to push for their own interests as a sovereign state before everything else...

Violet...

[ant]

22. interesting

I'm not sure I agree with you, but more because I'm not sure what kind of public pressure would be put on a government that walked out. I would agree with what you said for all countries except the US, but mostly because my impression (which granted, may be wrong) is that those countries have greater respect for and a bigger interest in seeing the UN survive. The US does not; or at least, it doesn't think it does. The US has a different mindset about these things, I think, and as much as people may support the idea of international cooperation the fact is national security comes first, even if it means going it alone. I think any US admin would find it difficult to convince the public that the nation should be part of an int'l organization that may make somewhat binding decisions (as binding as a UN resolution can be) that it disagrees with or that threaten the nation's security. I'm going to guess the fears of world government that I referred to are more likely to be found in the US than anywhere else.

Actually, now that I think of it I'm not sure Russia and China would tolerate losing their veto power either. You're essentially asking these countries to relinquish some amount of sovereignty - not exactly, but in a way - and I'm not sure we're at a point where people would be willing to do that.

I apologize if I'm not being clear - this is actually a very interesting little game of speculation, and I'm having a difficult time sorting through the various factors.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Easy solution...

Disband the UN and put the US in charge. The UN is nothing but filth anyway. Oops. Wrong forum. The cheer-squad for comments like that is in the I/P forum ;)

Aren't there already rules that prohibit countries who commit human rights abuses from being members of the UN, let alone sitting on committees? I thought there was a Credentials Committee that is supposed to determine whether states have the credentials to occupy their seats at the UN. In reality, it's a technical rubber-stamping machine, but if it were to do it's job without interference from states like the US, membership in the UN would be thinned out a fair bit, and nations like the US, Israel and Australia should be amongst the first to go for their human rights violations...

Violet...

[durutti]

24. The UN is Completely Undemocratic

Lenin called the League of Nations a "thieves' kitchen". It was an institution that the imperialist powers used to divide up the world. The UN is essentially the same thing.

The General Assembly voting system needs to be changed. The one-nation, one-vote system underrepresents the world's most underprivileged nations. Three ideas for change: a binding triad, which would base General Assembly decisions on three concurrent 2/3 majorities based on nations, populations, and contributions to the UN budget; a second, population-based chamber of the General Assembly; authorization for the General Assembly to submit referenda to the public at large.

The veto has also been used towards undemocratic ends. Vetoes should not be permitted to block appointment of fact-finding missions or task-force study groups, the recognition of new UN members of of changes in governments, the question of whether an issue is substantive or procedural, or the enforcement of decisions of the World Court. Powers party to a dispute should not be allowed to use a veto to help resolve the dispute to their advantage.

In addition, the international community needs to vigorously support the International Criminal Court and mechanisms for the protection of human rights.

[fujiyama]

25. The UN as it is now

is a sham. It makes no sense and it is a kabuki theater. Nations act though they care about issues, but as the whole war with Iraq build up showed, the UN was pathetic.

The reasons are many fold, but mainly because as it stands now powerful nations like the US can still bully and bribe weaker nations. The US was willing to literally bribe several nations with aid packages and debt reduction based on their vote on the Iraq resolution, likewise it was going to punish those that would not. It also gave several senators a way to wiggle out of the question over the morality and necessity of the war. Several said, I'll support it if other nations do.

An above poster claimed that the US, Israel and Australia would have to leave based on human rights violations. While I agree these nations haven't the greatest records, there are many non western nations as well on the UN that have horrible records. Please explain how Syria and Pakistan have seats on the Security Council? Israel's HR record isn't good, but it is not nearly as bad as the above two.

After all wasn't Sierre Leone on the HR commission a while back? This makes no sense at all, considering slavery is still practiced there.

I still have no idea why France has a permanent seat but India doesn't, considering it has the second largest population of the world. And why do other nations have to abide by resolutions passed by these 5 nations? I'm not going to believe for a second that somehow these five are morally superior than the hundreds of other nations on the UN. That's ridiculous. All of this shows the flaws. Veto power by certain nations - This is also very undemocratic.

The UN has done some great things and I think UNICEF is an example of that. When it comes to aid and peacekeeping the UN is vital. We need to make sure that these aspects are strengthened, but I still am very cynical about the way the UN works.