Hornburger
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
- Messages
- 452
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Hornburger said:I'm doing a scholarship and the question asks: What reforms should be made to the UN?
All opinions would be encouraged; I appreciate everyone's help!
Bergslagstroll said:Well UN have atleast been abit succefull lately like for example the Iraq war. Yes of course UN couldn't stop it, but the USA couldn't force UN and the mayority of the security counsel to obey there will. Also USA lost alot of international support by going against UN.
Kelzie said:Here is my thinkings on how the structure of the UN should be reformed:
First, remove veto powers from the permanent members. For the General Assembly, each state would have a proportional number of representatives based on their population. Here's the kicker. The number of their representitives would be multiplied by the percentage that their government represents the population. In less democratic countries, ie China, even though they should have a large number of representatives, since they are not very democratic, they would have less of the influence that they should have. This would offer incentive to other countries to represent their people's interests better.
Bergslagstroll said:Well UN have atleast been abit succefull lately like for example the Iraq war. Yes of course UN couldn't stop it, but the USA couldn't force UN and the mayority of the security counsel to obey there will. Also USA lost alot of international support by going against UN.
The UN would definately have more teeth if it wasn't for rogue nations that didn't care about international opinion.Originally posted by Calm2Chaos:
The UN is an old dog with no teeth..... I think it's time for the needle...!!!
The Real McCoy said:I like that idea. And countries like Sudan should have almost zero representation, ESPECIALLY when it comes to human rights.
Kelzie said:The problem is that you'd still want those countries at least participating. After all, that was one of the reasons that the UN was formed: to offer a forum for countries to discuss their grievances. To their credit, there has been no world wide war since they started.
Kelzie said:Here is my thinkings on how the structure of the UN should be reformed:
First, remove veto powers from the permanent members. For the General Assembly, each state would have a proportional number of representatives based on their population. Here's the kicker. The number of their representitives would be multiplied by the percentage that their government represents the population. In less democratic countries, ie China, even though they should have a large number of representatives, since they are not very democratic, they would have less of the influence that they should have. This would offer incentive to other countries to represent their people's interests better.
Calm2Chaos said:The UN is an old dog with no teeth..... I think it's time for the needle...!!!
Kandahar said:That seems like an interesting idea, but I wonder if it would work in implementation. How much a country represents its people is not something that's easily quantifiable, and any formula to figure it out would have implicit assumptions built into it.
Kelzie said:It's actually not that hard. There's a number if independent organizations that already rate all the countries in the world on their level of democracy (I'll find them if you want, can't remember them off the top of my head). They do a pretty decent job, and I'd imagine it wouldn't be that hard to implement it into a percentage.
Kelzie said:It's actually not that hard. There's a number if independent organizations that already rate all the countries in the world on their level of democracy (I'll find them if you want, can't remember them off the top of my head). They do a pretty decent job, and I'd imagine it wouldn't be that hard to implement it into a percentage.
Kandahar said:But the credibility of those organizations comes from the fact that they're independent. If you use their rankings to determine representation, suddenly they're a political committee and subject to political pressure.
Billo_Really said:The UN would definately have more teeth if it wasn't for rogue nations that didn't care about international opinion.
M14 Shooter said:The UN has one set of teeth - the same set its had since its inception:
The United States.
This was never more apparent than 2003, when the US (and our cousins in the UK) decided to act on the threats laid down by the UN -- and the UN refused to back us up.
In 2003, when the UN refused to back up its words with action, it lost all credibility as a 'problem solving' body. There isnt any reason why a country like Iran oir North Korea should take anythng the UN says sertious -- unless its clear that the US is willing to back up those resolutiuons with direct force.
M14 Shooter said:The UN has one set of teeth - the same set its had since its inception:
The United States.
This was never more apparent than 2003, when the US (and our cousins in the UK) decided to act on the threats laid down by the UN -- and the UN refused to back us up.
In 2003, when the UN refused to back up its words with action, it lost all credibility as a 'problem solving' body. There isnt any reason why a country like Iran oir North Korea should take anythng the UN says sertious -- unless its clear that the US is willing to back up those resolutiuons with direct force.
Bergslagstroll said:I'm repeting my self now... But that you say is true with big "sexy" operation there USA feel there own interest is threathen. But if you look to all the conflict UN is involed in you can see the most of the peacekeeping troops is from countries outside USA and the west. Also millions of people around the world gets helped by this operation. But because those conflict is not in the media spotlight americans but also other western can ignore that work.
Right now are there sixteen/eighteen missions...
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/bnote.htm
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?