UN Restructuring

[Pangloss]

Just curious if anyone has looked at this yet. I've caught a little about it on the news but not much as yet.

 

The biggest changes appear to be the enlargement of the Security Council (weaken the US?) and the creation of a Human Rights Council (replacing the much-lamented Commission). There's also a bit in there about all nations contributing 0.7% of GDP for poor countries (welfare?).

 

 

Here in the US the timing of the changes is the main news. The Volcker investigation into the oil-for-food scandal found some pretty nasty involvement by Annan and his son.

 

Some background info can be found here:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7238697/

 

List of proposed changes:

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/interactive.asp?id=/d/ip/unrenewal_050321/data.js&navid=3032506&cp1=1

[rakuenso]

the UN tries to act communist but totally fails, personally i don't think the UN should exist anyways. it would be much more convienent to if one country just took over the world.

 

but as for the topic at hand, i don't personally agree with countries contributing MONEY to other countries. It would be much more effective if instead foot, shelter, and clothing were sent instead of money that can easily fall into the wrong hands.

[TimeTraveler]

Here in the US the timing of the changes is the main news. The Volcker investigation into the oil-for-food scandal found some pretty nasty involvement by Annan and his son.

 

Have you read the Volcker report? I didn't think it was out yet. At any rate Annan has said he is confident he will not be incriminated, I would like to read the report if it is indeed out yet. I have always considered Kofi Annan a good man and I appreciate alot that he has done or has at least tried to do.

 

As for his proposed plan I like it, I would like to read the full thing in detail if I could.

[Tetrahedrite]

the UN tries to act communist but totally fails, personally i don't think the UN should exist anyways.

I suspect you don't understand the meaning of "communist", or are you just doing the typical American thing and using it as a derogatory term?

 

it would be much more convienent to if one country just took over the world.

I agree. How about China takes over the world. They have the biggest population, so why not!

[Skye]

I agree that the security council needs change. But the only change that I see as being a saviour for the UN is for it to be scrapped and security issues to go through the general assembly.

[urza]

the UN tries to act communist but totally fails' date=' personally i don't think the UN should exist anyways. it would be much more convienent to if one country just took over the world.

 

but as for the topic at hand, i don't personally agree with countries contributing MONEY to other countries. It would be much more effective if instead foot, shelter, and clothing were sent instead of money that can easily fall into the wrong hands.[/quote']

 

 

i agree with your second statement but not your first... explain how you think they are trying to be communist, do you even know the meaning of the word and everything associated with it?

[Pangloss]

I don't know if the Volcker report is out yet or not. I really have not followed this closely. Does anybody know?

[rakuenso]

I'll explain to you how the UN tries to be Communist, (I have lived in China for 9 years of my life so I think I have som credibility.)

 

1. The UN is designed so that every country has an equal voice in its policies, despite the large difference between the military and economic power. Each country is supposed to contribute to the global effort in some way. However, clearly this is not so. Communism is similar because it treats everyone similarly despite the fact that some people are more able than others. Communism also expects that everyone contribute their own part to the state itself.

 

2. It fails to act Communist because there are six primary nations that have the power to veto any bill that comes along. Even though for example France contributes almost nothing towards the global effort other than to veto any policy that the US makes.

 

3. I said that it tries to be communist, not that it is communist. If anything the UN is a bit capitalist.

 

4. As a reponse to urza, do I know everything associated with communism? No, but do you? From what I know, Communism was a theory originated from th Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx. Its basic dogmatic philosophy was that everyone should contribute to the state. Similar to how the UN should function, every country pulling its own weight in helping the global situation. Karl Marx once quoted "workers of the world unite", which is very similar to UN's belief that countries of the world unite.

[Skye]

Each country having an equal voice is entirely analogous to each person having a single vote in modern democracies.

[Pangloss]

Which, oddly enough, is not actually how most democracies work.

[Skye]

How do you mean?

[syntax252]

.07% of America's GDP is something on the order of 77 Billion dollars annually.

 

77 billion dollars represents something like 256 $ pr man, woman and child in America. For a family of 4, that is over a grand.

 

Why would we want to do a thing like that?

[Pangloss]

What I mean is that most modern "democracies" aren't controlled by the concepts of "majority rule" or "one person, one vote". Those principles play an important role in them, but they aren't dominant (since "mob rule" is generally a bad thing). The analogy is flawed.

[atinymonkey]

.07% of America's GDP is something on the order of 77 Billion dollars annually.

 

77 billion dollars represents something like 256 $ pr man' date=' woman and child in America. For a family of 4, that is over a grand.

 

Why would we want to do a thing like that?[/quote']

 

The war on Iraq costs the US on average 4.7 billion dollars per month, and has racked up a grand total of $110 billion since the troops landed. Bitch about the high cost of war, not that the price of peace is too steep.

[rakuenso]

What I mean is that most modern "democracies" aren't controlled by the concepts of "majority rule" or "one person, one vote". Those principles play an important role in them, but they aren't dominant (since "mob rule" is generally a bad thing). The analogy is flawed.

 

cough electoral college cough.

[syntax252]

The war on Iraq costs the US on average 4.7 billion dollars per month, and has racked up a grand total of $110 billion since the troops landed. Bitch about the high cost of war, not that the price of peace is too steep.

 

I think that the cost of the war in Iraq is cheap compared with rebuilding one of our cities or trying to compensate the families of perhaps 1,000 000 deaths caused by a terrorist attack--don't you?

[TimeTraveler]

I think that the cost of the war in Iraq is cheap compared with rebuilding one of our cities or trying to compensate the families of perhaps 1,000 000 deaths caused by a terrorist attack--don't you?

 

And the destruction of Iraq has ultimately prevented this fictional terrorist attack that may happen and may kill 1,000,000?

[Skye]

Pangloss, perhaps I didn't articulate my point well enough. It was that the concept of everyone having an equal voice is analogous to the concept of one person-one vote that exists in modern democracies. Not that modern democracies are ruled by this concept (nor is the UN), but it exists in both and I still see it as analogous.

[atinymonkey]

Comment retracted

[Pangloss]

Come on guys, let's not newtonianize this thread too. Everyone's got a valid opin to opine.

 

I think tiny has an important point about the cost of peace vs the cost of war. There's no question about the value of preparing for war, and I don't think anybody is suggesting that the United States dismantle its military. But I think one of the lessons we need to learn from Iraq is that, while the UN may certainly be flawed (and I believe it is), there would definitely have been some value in holding back a little longer from the invasion and checking for those WMDs a little more carefully. How else are we going to do something like that? Your choices are simple, either (a) use a body like the UN, or (b) go in via war, spending a GREAT DEAL of money at great risk of the possibility of being wrong. What else is there?

 

Put another way, our long-term investment in the UN pays dividends even when it doesn't always decide things in our favor. Had we utilized that resource more fully in 2003, even though it was really frustrating and egotistically disatisfying to do so, we could have saved a great deal of money and a lot of lives.

[Dave]

How else are we going to do something like that? Your choices are simple, either (a) use a body like the UN, or (b) go in via war, spending a GREAT DEAL of money at great risk of the possibility of being wrong. What else is there?

 

I couldn't agree more - it just really doesn't help that the US went ahead and undermined everything the UN is supposed to stand for. This all boils down to the fact that the US feels that it can just simply choose a country to invade and then go and do it; if that attitude prevails, then there simply isn't any point in having the UN.

[Pangloss]

But again, even if you stop short of that specific judgement (as I do -- I really don't believe we just go around picking countries to invade), the point is that there's clear benefit here, if for no other reason than the fact that the cost of invasion is so horrendous.

 

But this has really gotten a bit too far along the lines of justifying the UN itself (my fault), and really what I was looking for in this thread was some of the pros and cons behind the restructuring itself. I guess the problem there being that it hasn't been fleshed out enough for any of us to really give it a good assessment yet. I believe they said something about a six-month debate period, so we may know more later this year.

[Dave]

I don't know what to expect really; as someone said earlier, the security council definitely needs a complete overhaul. Beyond that (as you say), who knows?

 

I suppose that one of the points I was trying to make in my post (but failed to mention) was the fact that this really sets a dangerous precedent in terms of other countries having disagreements.

 

Maybe I'm blowing this out of proportion too much, though.

[Pangloss]

IMO that's a quite reasonable point, but of course not everyone will agree with us. (shrug)

 

Would you (or anyone else) be interested in expanding a bit on what the security council could use an overhaul? That sounds like it might be worth getting into.

[Skye]

I said earlier that it should be scrapped and replaced by the general assembly. This is because I think there are situations where the UN should be more active. The lack of activity isn't just because there isn't representation of different regions, which seems to be Annan's argument. The security council is already large enough that it usually contains members from different regions. The problem is that too often one of the permanent members takes issue with a proposal and it's shot down. This isn't all bad, it prevents rash action from occurring. However, I think a situation where you need a two thirds majority would serve well enough in this regard.