Changes needed to make a more effective UN

.. bookmark ..

OK, ehm, its too late in the night to come up with all too elaborate arguments, but i dont mind taking a few shots across the bows (that correct english?)

I mean - this is a free-for-all, right? We dont have to take into account what is realistic and attainable?

I would say, to start with the security council - its an antiquated institution, in particular the permanent members. They're only in there because of historic entitlements and the force of power - but i dont see why once having had a colonial empire or having held the world hostage with one's nukes would 'deserve' one a seat at the ruling table. A lot of the current discussion is about granting permanent membership to this or that extra country - but thats just tinkering with a bad set-up.

I'd do away with permanent members altogether. Instead, let the countries of each continent (or comparable regional set of countries) elect a semi-permanent member every ten years. As for the remaining seats, that are now, too, electable, they can continue being filled as they are now.

I would love to do away with veto rights too. The fact that just the one powerful country can stop pretty much any and every initiative or resolution it doesnt like, is a scourge on the attempts to promote world peace and justice - and the resulting lopsidedness of who gets slammed by the UN and who doesnt greatly undermines the UN's credibility.

On the other hand, its of course easy to see what the rationale behind them is. A great power can in principle fight much of its own way around the world as well (at least in the short term), yet somehow would need to be persuaded to instead keep accepting the authority of the UN. Its only ever going to do that as long as it knows it can at least control or limit that UN's actions through a veto right. Take the veto right away from the US, for one, and itll probably just jump the UN ship altogether - and try to destroy it from the outside. So theres a dilemma.

But - I wasnt going to take heed of what was realistic or attainable, so here we go: abolish SC veto rights. Theres no reason why the UK should be allowed to stop initiatives it dissaproves of, but Italy shouldnt (replace country names by ones of your own choice).

To avoid mob justice, however, a pretty high limit should be in place. On questions of (authorising) war and peace, a 3/4 majority in the new SC. On other major resolutions, a 2/3 majority.

Every resolution should be approved by both a majority in the General Assembly and the required majority in the SC. The GA should be upgraded. I dont know exactly how.

Chronical refusal to pay membership contributions should have an impact on one's status in the UN - for example, being barred from election to the SC.

The UN should get a permanent inspection team on the matter of what are now called WMD - a kind of IAEA for chemical and biological weapons, so that missions like those in Iraq do not need to be compiled ad hoc and expertise can be built up over the years.

The UN should have a permanent set of "blue helmet" peacekeeping troops, so that these, neither, need to be reconstituted ad hoc any longer, with the UN doing the rounds begging for a thousand troops here or there to come up with the number that the political leaders previously promised with much ado. For example, countries over a certain population / prosperity could 'set aside' 5% of their regular army troops for "blue helmet" duty. (In countries like the Netherlands, its already much more than that, I think).

These troops should receive additional "peacekeeping" training by one anothers armies, as a kind of military 'exchange of good practice', which will increase the respective countries' expertise with the added benefit of an exchange of perspectives that might just help foster tolerance and caution as well ...

All member states should ratify the International Criminal Court to finally establish a 'neutral' mechanism, beyond victors' justice, to persecute war crimes and crimes of genocide - to signal the lessons we've learned from this most disgraceful century of the past millenium, with its near-industrialised mass murders and genocides.

(Still only talking "what", not "how", right?)

Benchmarks should be set that automatically tie certain sanctions to repetitive, massive human rights violations of a certain, specified extent. If these especially specify the persecution of ethnic/cultural minorities, nation-states might be tempted to approve of this, since it would give them in the protection of their kin across the borders what it takes from them in their own absolute control over their territory.

The standards for what constitutes an "aggressor state" (when defining what is acceptable self-defence/retaliation) should be adapted to reflect the increased threat of extra-national agressor networks ("terrorists"). This should give countries the right to retaliate at the hosts of terrorists who attack them as well - in return for the demand that they can prove these to indeed be such hosts to the SC. (Thats my rather transparent concession to US interests).

On the other hand, it is the ever increased trade in ever more dangerous weapons that escalates the security threats of this world - and much of this trade to what later will be dubbed terrorist states or forces is done by perfectly legal businesses and by governments. To discourage this and earn some money to fight hunger with at the same time, I'll jump on "Lula" da Silva's populist bandwagon and suggest an x% "arms trade tax". Weapons with depleted uranium should be added to the list of proscribed weapons (such as chemical and biological weapons).

You see, I like a UN with teeth.

And I'm also totally shooting my mouth off here.

And all this was just about questions of war, peace and justice. Theres UNICEF, WHO, UNDP etc as well ...

Anybody else wanna have a go?

You're off to a good start for sure. One thing they have had in progress since Oct. 2001 is a comprehensive program which addresses terrorism, that is the most updated implementation I found on their site. It includes weapons controls, corruption and keeping extremist movements in check etc.

Food for thought from the, Organization of American States, who offer the idea that not everyone may join the UN. Member states must be at least electoral democracies. That puts OAS treaties, initiatives, and various committees in the context of serving a good beyond simply maintaining peace--a peace that is unachievable until more of the world is democratic. Although U.N. reforms should go deeper than who may join, entry criteria are a good place to start.

nimh has the right idea of thinking outside the box and has put forward a lot more thought than I at his point. In my view the biggest stumbling block for the UN is overcoming the inherent diversity of the member nations. Not much unites this collection of democracies, constitutional monarchies, autocracies, and totalitarian dictatorships except a low common denominator of assumed sovereignty. As a result, agreements make strange bedfellows and hardly ever help to resolve difficult crises because outlaw regimes and the countries that do business with them make up part of the membership. We're back to interest again, and I can't see the members subordinating sovereignties, interest and security in certain situations.

I think if the UN is effective in such a diverse world in it's challenges more often than not, it is about as good as it can get, the weakness being mostly in dealing with conlficts between states/nations.

bookmark.

it is hard, isn't it?

bookmark

1) eliminate the SC altogether
2) combine the WTO and UN
3) rewrite charter with specific punishments for nations who wage trade wars and real wars without UN sanction (US would not sign, but this is fantasy)
4) To draw the power players allow them to have more weight depending on how much power (money, military, being signatory to binding treaties) they cede to the UN
5) Have the UN headquarters change every 5 years
6) Strippers

< more later, that's just the tip of teh iceberg >

To begin with I think the WTO needs to go (but then I also sympathize with the "Anti-Corporate" Movement.)

I also believe that the UN needs to basically change focus from being a force against global war to being a force against US and Corporate Imperialism. (But as of now could the two be connected)

How to do this is something I'll need to chew on.

nimh's


should be tempered by Craven's



It is ridiculous to have your hand out for money from us, when we have spent more than everyone else. A fee should be assessed, all should pay equally. Money spent by nations toward the pursuit of work of the UN should be subtracted from UN fees. Costs by the nation hosting the UN--diplomatic charges and perks supplied by the host country--should be subtracted, as well.

Every nation should have a seat. Nations deemed by the UN to be in violation of humanitarian laws should have their voting rights suspended for a time determined by the majority.

No vetos.

No SC.

All members are equal.

When and if the EU solidifies and becomes one voice-- they should have one voice in the UN. :wink:

The cleaned up Colorado kind, or the sleazy Bawl'mer kind?

I not that nimh( in the Netherlands) wants to remove the veto power.
I wonder if NIMH is aware that when the US constitution was set up, there were two Senators provided for each state( In that regard the states were equal) and Representatives approportioned according to population. The founders were wise enough to make certain that the small states did not have more power than the states with greater population.

Mr. Nimh is referred to Tom Friedman's "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" which clearly shows that when the US sneezes Eurpoe catches cold.
For better or for worse, we are the premier power in the world- both militarily and economically. Globalization, according to Freidman's thesis is making it necessary that we listen much more carefully to all of the other nations in the world, since, as Friedman points out, the "world's investors" have the power to ruin the economy of any country whose economy is not transparent and run according to the "rule of law"with lawful elections.

This, of course, means democratization.

What does this have to do with the UN?

The "undemocratic countries, those run by despots, must not ever have an equal vote in the UN.
They are not countries which would be able to direct the direction of the world's resources.

Saddam's fifty palaces and decaying infrastructure is proof enough that we cannot allow dicatorships a meaningful voice in the UN.

Trade wars?

Mr. De Kere is invited to look at Friedman's comprehensive view of world trade. I am very much afraid that he will find that the USA is far and away much less tethered to "bribery" than most of the third world countries.

As the latest reports from Iraq tell us, the new merchants there would not be unwilling to pay a 15% or 25% tax to get the economy going since they had to pay 65" under the counter during Saddam's reign.

It is not fashionable to say so but before power can be allocated more equally in the UN, most of the third world will have to set up economies which are transparent, run according to the "rule of law" and set up after bonafide elections.

Italgato

You certainly know better than we Europeans that the 17th Amendment became part of the constitution as early as 1913.

"De Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal" exists since 1815 in the Netherlands. So I'm sure, nimh is aware about the fact, how the US-Senate is composed.

Just wondering - do you agree with Craven's statement that "the power players" should be "allowed more weight", or do you want a UN in which "all members are equal" and none have veto rights?

Seems some contradiction between those two elements of your posts.

Also, I was wondering what basis for the claim that "we [the US] have spent more than everyone else"?

Brand X, Italgato and Sofia all suggest limiting access or voting rights to countries not meeting humanitarian/democratic benchmarks. That raises an interesting question.

I agree that there should ideally be some reward/sanction mechanism tied to abuse/respect of human rights. I suggested that benchmarks should be set that automatically tie certain sanctions to certain extents of violations.

I dont think these sanctions should pertain to UN membership itself, though. For the simple reason that, once a country isnt even in the UN anymore, you have lost all possibilities of tackling that country through the treaties, conventions and resolutions connected to that body, too.

Think by ways of parallel, if someone doesnt sign the non-proliferation treaty, or doesnt recognize the IAEA, he's not bound to them, either. The reason the UN could order Iraq to let the inspectors in, in the first place (back after '91 and again last year), is that Iraq at least formally accepted the authority of the UN.

I wouldnt mind some kind of system of rewards/sanctions within the given of UN membership, though, see the example of restricting membership of a reformed SC.

I strongly object. Hoting the UN is a sweeter deal than hosting teh Olympics, the US wins on that and doesn;t deserve retribution. The UN should not be hosted on non-neutral ground. Either that or it should rotate.




I agree with most of this, first of all all nations CAN'T be considered equal. It'd be absurd.

The Vatican has as much of a say as China or the US? It would not work.

The key is finidng the criteria for power. One based on population would be problematic. I believe it has to be a complex algo based on how much power the nation grants to the UN as well as it's population.

I have. In the future I'd prefer not to get reading recomendations from you as they are rarely even remotely relevant.

Your suggestion herein has absolutely nothing to do with anything I posted.

the reason I suggest a tie in to the WTO is because the WTO is a way that many of teh penalties would be meted (in my plan).

Despite the anti-corporation anarchists noise the WTO is the global trade institution that most benefits developing nations. The WTO is teh venue through which developing nations have won trade battles that they'd otherwise have had no chance of winning.

Punishing human rights violators by disallowing them access to the UN won't work. It will simply put them out of UN reach and has historically been little to no help.

The WTO already stipulates some trade criteria. some nations get a break because they are poor, others for other reasons.

What I propose with the unification of the UN and WTO is the following:

The re-write of the charter would have as it's predominant purpose to tir all tarriffs into the UN (which has just absorbed the WTO).

So developing nations get a small break from all other nations, nations that violate human rights get a slightly higher tariff from everybody else, nations who comply with a UN goal (such as a reduction in emissions or somesuch) get a break.

And so it goes. If the world set tarriffs according to their goals (instead of arbitrary special intrest lobby groups) the greatest power on earth (control of trade) will be dedicated toward the improvement of the world.

Hmmm ... I dont think you can come up with any objective algo, so with any which algo you'll come up with exceptions will be made immediately ... no use.

I came up with the idea of indirect elections to the SC on a whim, but it might well work - it would, in any case, in practice probably meet both the criteria of power and co-operativeness.

If each continent/regional zone gets to vote one of its General Assembly peers into the SC, they would most likely vote in one of the more powerful countries on their continent (Europe wouldnt vote in Iceland - it would want a country with diplomatic clout in there).

At the same time they wouldnt vote in a country that had demonstrated itself to be especially obstructive towards the UN (not unless a majority of countries on that continent shared its desire for obstruction) - so that would guarantee that rogue states had little chance and that attempts to sidetrack the UN would be rebuked with a concrete loss of influence.

And all the while noone would be able to blame a partisan algo for them not getting into the SC.

Craven, there's a relatively fresh thread on the WTO around here - could become interesting, despite its unpromising title, 's got one or two interesting (InfraBlue) posts already.

nimh,

In my idea there is no SC.