QuoteIf you only include democracies then you elimante half the nations in the world.
Replace it with what & with what kind of mandate?
Yes
No
Would you like to see the UN replaced or reformed?
I say yes because the whole notion of a veto is anti-democratic, kind of like the kid who walks away with the football when he doesn't get his way.
The vote strength should be based on populations and only include democracies ( e.g. not China, though such nations should be allowed to have a voice at meetings, just no vote ).
If you only include democracies then you elimante half the nations in the world.
Replace it with what & with what kind of mandate?
Do you want me to draft a whole paper for you?
Come on....... I only want to know if people are dissatisfied with the current UN structure!
the Un has failed. it will not be replaced just states like USA will do as they see fit
Camac Ultras North Terrace Section
I'd reiterate pete's question. I realise we're not politicians, but the tone of the thread and the poll is exactly the kind of thing I'd expect from one -- complain about something and ask for it's removal or replacement, with no alternative provided, or even suggested. Dan Boyle got short shrift from me when he tried the same kind of kindergarten politics:
Dan: The incinerator is bad.
Adam: What do you propose as an alternative?
Dan: ...
Dan made the booboo of trying to market himself on Boards.ie, so I happily continued our little email debate in public. He still hasn't answered the question properly. And he still won't appear on my ballot card.
adam
Its silly to get rid of the UN... Just because your car doesn't work right now you don't just do away with it and get a new one (Bad analogy)
The UN is only going to be as powerful as its member states allow it to be. To say the UN has 'failed' is an oxymoron in itself. The UN was founded on the back of WW2, both by democratic countries and undemocratic countries. The UN stands for the UNITED NATIONS and so to exclude non democracies (I know you didn't say this) is undemocratic in itself. I agree, the veto should be given only to a select few, though I'm not very confident about the USA itself holding a veto.
In short we need the UN to act as a medium for diplomacy and peace for the whole world. If more of us used the UN and talked (PalestinePalestinePalestinePalestineetc.) rather than screamed 'Allah' and blew ourselves up in a mind boggingly unnecessary intifadah then the world would be a much better place.
The UN is a sham pure and simple. Its a talk shop unless the US needs it to be otherwise, then it becomes a figleaf for imperialism.
TO TELL THE TRUTH IS REVOLUTIONARY
The ONLY foot.ie user with a type of logic named after them!
All of this has happened before. All of it will happen again.
I'd dismantle the UN right now and try to build it up from the ground down. Through its non-actions in places like Rwanda and the Lebanon the name of the UN has been dragged through the mud, and I doubt it will ever be wiped clean.
Considering that absolue power corrupts absolutely I don't see how a working World union can operate. There will never be a situation where America, France, Britain, Russia etc. aren't out for anything other than benefits for themselves, so whats the point of pretending otherwise. When you have a case like Rwanda's, where a genocide was allowed to continue because a) France were trying to regain a foothold in the area, and b) America were afraid of any bad publicity that might come from their peacekeepers being murdered, you see that the UN is nothing but a farce, that is only maintained by the people who benefit the most from it.
I'd decrease the 'power' that the UN is supposed to have to the role of observers and advisers to the bigger powers, and allow them to continue to be the most equipped aid agency in the world, but outside of the bigger powers agreeing to a set number of their armies joining a World peacekeeping force, where they have no control over where, or when they are sent into war I don't see any reason for any further pretence that anyone cares what the UN say or do in this world.
(sorry if that seemed disjointed, I'm knackered tired, and I just heard O'Connor quit Limerick FC so I'm also deliriously happy!)
why not remove the Veto of one country??
How about keeping a veto system of say, if over 30% of nations vote against some issue it cant be passed.
Its unfair to let one nation oppose any bill
Finn Harps Belfast Supporters
If we didn't have the UN, the democratic Nations would all probably be pushing for the establishment of such a forum for discussion. It may just be a "talk shop", but there's a lot that can be said for sometimes simply "verbalising" discontent. That said, an institution as important as this should always be willing to advance, and reform with changing circumstances.
As you've said in terms of a peacekeeping force, what would people think ( idealistically speaking ) of the UN getting funds only from nations but that it had it's own armed forces made up of volunteers ( kinda like the French Foreign Legion except without the criminals, or even like the volunteers in the Spanish Civil War ). I know some nations would be afraid of having a new superpower but if it was limited in size ( to say 10,000 ) and made up of Infantry only with the necessary transport then it could not be perceived as a threat to any one nation. Of course you'd have to be able to accomodate them somewhere but they could be kept maybe in 10 nations at 1,000 a piece or so, or four nations at 2,500 a go say one group each in S. America, Asia, Africa and Europe.Originally Posted by jebus
I know a lot of ye might argue that 10,000 would not be enough but it might be enough to quickly intervene in third world countries at very short notice. Then ye might argue as to who would take over so the force could be freed up again but that's where the bit of raising troop contributions would come in. At worst, the force would go in and add stability for a period, then if nations would not contribute troops they'd have to find a half way house ( e.g. safe zones in the country -but real ones not like in the Balkans ).
Big problem nations of course ( e.g. North Korea ) would be another story but a force like that outlined above could have been enough to stop the genocide in Rwanda.
Using volunteers would certainly get around the political problem of countries sending troops or not. Of course they'd need the funds for it to begin with.
Last edited by Shelsman; 28/08/2006 at 5:08 PM.
The UN is the best that we have. Without it there would be total anarchy on the planet. Now I'm not saying that everything is hunky dory in the garden but can you imagine the international scene without any order. FFS the Israelis, Yanks, Russians and Chinese would have a field day.
The UN in its nuts and bolts does need a lot of fine tuning but as the dahamsta pointed out, what would you get to replace it? NATO...no way Jose.
Agree here. You can't say it hasn't done some good at some point & even if its saved a few lives then its done something worthwhile.
"I always likened him to a Rolls Royce. You just used him once a week & he'd be flawless"
Townsend on McGrath
The UN approved the first Gulf War.
The UN Approved the sanctions against Iraq that slowly killed thousands upon thousands.
The UN is portrayed as some benevolent neutral organisation when it is far from it. They have good PR, thats about it.
UN = Diet NATO
Have you seen Hotel Rwanda?
TO TELL THE TRUTH IS REVOLUTIONARY
The ONLY foot.ie user with a type of logic named after them!
All of this has happened before. All of it will happen again.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks