UN Reform?

[Sisyphus]

That other topic about a "UN Army" got me thinking. The UN is obviously a deeply flawed organization in a lot of ways, but I think that it's also done a whole lot of good in the world, and that the basic concept, a permanent organization where representatives from all nations can meet and work out their common problems in a neutral setting, is a wonderful idea. So I guess I'll just ask two pretty wide open questions that can hopefully generate some good discussion.

 

If you had the power to reform and restructure the United Nations in any way you chose, what you do? Specifically, how would you deal with the more active aspects, where the UN as a whole makes resolutions? How do we muster forces for peacekeeping and the like when not all nations agree to help as they are able? Should the security council have permanent members like it does now, elected members, rotating members, or perhaps automatic membership if certain qualifications are met...?

 

What can relatively responsible, liberalized nations like the United States, Europe, Japan, etc., realistically do to improve the situation?

[CPL.Luke]

I think that the major flaw in current UN policy is that it will step in and pass a resolution calling for the end of a relatively small conflict between small countries like israel and lebanon, but when it comes to a large country like the US invading a small country like Iraq they do nothing.

 

The main thing I see as being necessary is to replace the UN with something else, where every country is obligated in some way to obey the resolutions that the new body passes. It would also be nice to add in something similar to the FBI into this new body, its main function would be as an anti-terror force, working with member countries own law enforcement and on its own when neccessary.

[Sisyphus]

Putting all arguments for against the legitimacy of the Iraq war aside, who's going to sign up for "peacekeeping" against the U.S. military?

 

I think one of the problems is that the only way you're going to get any country to obey a resolution is if enough, stronger countries are willing to enforce it. But who polices the police?

 

And I like the anti-terror "police" force thing, except that the UN is a collection of nations, some of whom wildly disagree on the definition of a terrorist. Whose laws are enforced? Is the General Assembly going to act as a legislative body?

[CPL.Luke]

And I like the anti-terror "police" force thing, except that the UN is a collection of nations, some of whom wildly disagree on the definition of a terrorist. Whose laws are enforced? Is the General Assembly going to act as a legislative body?

 

yes, the UN assembly would have to decide on a definition of terrorist that everyone could agree to, I would say that any antion could pose further restrictions on what a terrorist is within its own borders, however a good start would be to say that any individuals planning on attacking a country other than their own, or recieving support from a foreign government automatically qualify as terrorists.