Project: Are you brilliant enough to fix the UN (our lives depend on it)?

Thorn · February 10, 2003, 14:06

I've seen many people come up with plans for the ideal government, and try to put them in play in these little pathetic government simulations run by a bunch of 12-16 year olds. But that doesn't do a bit of good for anyone. What I want is a design that could work to make a better functioning United Nations, where the core states cannot leave or abandon it without penalty by all the other members. In order for it to work, all members must be included. There can still be a so called security council but it should include only nations that have the ability to help with the enforcement division.

The League of Nations was founded on the principle to prevent another World War. This was after World War I which is a classic example of the results of the buildup of aggression and weapons by nations fearing for their security-- sound familiar (look at the world today)?

Well the US wouldn't back it, and key members were left out and not represented. So it failed. World War II happened.

Fast forward to right after World War II, the UN was founded to prevent another World War again. It has had many successes and failures and the coming time is very important to its very survival.

The problem with the UN is that it is used as basically a vehicle of the superpowers to achieve their own ends without any limitations put on them for their behavior and also it lacks an enforcement ability.

I want one of you Apolyton Geniuses to write necessary changes to amend the UN that would get it to function correctly. It's a lot of work to ask, but the alternative is to look foward to World War III, and Nuclear Annihilation! Perhaps one person isn't compotent enough to do this, so perhaps it can be a joint project of all Apolytoners to basically save the world from repeating history again and again.

When I get a chance I'm going look up some information on the UN Charter and the laws a regulations currently in place (if someone else already has access to this then by all means help out).

Also if any of you know anyone that could get the finished result submitted to current governments and the UN assembly itself then please tell us.

It's a chance to get outside of your games, opinions, etc, and help make a difference in the world which you very lives may depend. Worst cases scenario it will be nothing more then an academic exercise. But either way it is well worth it.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 14:44

1) Every nation on the planet currently recognized AS a nation is a member. Membership = being recognized by at least 3/4 of the member nations and....being on planet Earth. You wanna opt out? Leave planet earth.

2) Every nation on the planet contributes 3% of its GDP and 3% of its armed forces, placing these funds and troops under the direct control of the UN. Collectively, this will make the UN an unrivaled Peace Keeping Force. If needs be, the UN can call on greater contributions from member states (passed by a majority or 3/4 vote, to be determined later).

3) No nation has veto powers. The elected head of the UN, however HAS.

4) Only democratic nations may serve on council positions. Non-democratic nations may participate in all debates, however (change charter to reflect the global spread of democratic ideals as being among the UN"s primary missions). Democratic Nations = Nations in which free elections are held. The people may decide who leads them, without fear of being gunned down or beaten at the voting booth (definition subject to further debate by the revamped un council)

5) All UN reps are ELECTED by the countries they represent, not appointed. This holds true even for non democratic nations. If they choose not to send a representative, that's their business, but the UN rulings still apply to them.

::nods:: That should get the ball rolling.

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 17:34

Dealing with non-compliance:

If member nations do not pay their dues, do not commit the specified levels of manpower to the UN, or do not uphold and enforce UN resolutions, then those member states lose their voting rights on all issues until the situation is rectified. Further, those member states may be voted off of any council positons they hold via "no confidence" vote (frequency of these votes to be determined later)

-=Vel=-

Thorn · February 10, 2003, 19:57

I'm surprised that not more of you participate in this thread, obviously you don't give a f-uck what happens to the world and the people that live in it, if that be so, then so be it.

Quote:

2) Every nation on the planet contributes 3% of its GDP and 3% of its armed forces, placing these funds and troops under the direct control of the UN. Collectively, this will make the UN an unrivaled Peace Keeping Force. If needs be, the UN can call on greater contributions from member states (passed by a majority or 3/4 vote, to be determined later).

In order for the council to provide security it must be more powerful then the member states including the core powers.

Quote:

4) Only democratic nations may serve on council positions. Non-democratic nations may participate in all debates, however (change charter to reflect the global spread of democratic ideals as being among the UN"s primary missions). Democratic Nations = Nations in which free elections are held. The people may decide who leads them, without fear of being gunned down or beaten at the voting booth (definition subject to further debate by the revamped un council)

The main purpose is to provide sercurity for the entire world and regions of the world, political makeup of governments should be irrelevant.

Quote:

If member nations do not pay their dues, do not commit the specified levels of manpower to the UN, or do not uphold and enforce UN resolutions, then those member states lose their voting rights on all issues until the situation is rectified. Further, those member states may be voted off of any council positons they hold via "no confidence" vote (frequency of these votes to be determined later)

Is that going to stop the United States from pulling out if it wants to? -- No. Economic Sanctions required by all of the other member nations against a nation trying to withdraw. That would do it.

Sandman · February 10, 2003, 20:16

1. The UN should have a permanent standing army, navy and airforce.
2. The UN should be able to disband failing states, and create new ones.
3. The UN should be able to directly govern territory.

The core mission of the UN should be the continued survival and growth of the human race. Nothing else matters.

Wezil · February 10, 2003, 20:27

I agree no nation should have veto power. Indeed, this is one of the fatal flaws of the current organization.

That being said, there isn't a chance in hell the nations which currently have a veto will support any future setup that denies them this.

World government is the path we must ultimately go down, but we are not ready.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 20:28

Sandman - 3% of the forces, drawn from the world over *would give* the UN a standing force larger than any core power.

We disagree on my point 4, however, as we did in the related thread. I view a revamped UN as playing a major role as a force for democracy. This, in my opinion (and I know full well that yours differs), WOULD increase global security.

As to the non-compliance.....I consider all of the above a work in progress, and I quite agree with your bolstering of it. Kudos!

As to your own points.

Standing army - agreed, created by the % of armed forces agreed upon at the first revamped un council meeting.

your point 2 - agreed, but of course, I would add that it's mandate should include any non-democratic state

your point three - agreed, per my earlier statements re: un provisional governments.

-=Vel=-

PS: And I too, am quite surprised that this thread has gotten so little attention. Perhaps because the chief passtime in these parts is griping without bothering to float alternatives....

Wezil · February 10, 2003, 21:13

I'm interested but the question is too fanciful.

Address the veto problem - How do you get the permanent 5 of the current UN to give this up?

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 21:20

Two approaches come immediately to mind:

One would be that a member nation who already HAS veto power be the one to lead the charge to give it up (USA). Seeing its newfound willingness to play by the rules may well convince the other nations to follow suit.

Barring that, begin pushing hard for a means of allowing the UN body proper to override any such veto, if made (without revealing the eventual purpose). --Note: such a thing may already be possible, I honestly do not know.

Of course, all the member states that currently do not HAVE this power will be almost guaranteed to line up behind such a proposal, and when it is pushed through, the very NEXT item proposed, would be to eliminate veto powers to any member nation, and give that power, instead, to the elected head of the UN.

To be sure though, I'd try both approaches, in the reverse order that they're listed here....

-=Vel=-

Wezil · February 10, 2003, 21:54

Hmmm.

Highly unlikely you will get such a concession willingly. Nations act in their own self-interest and I doubt any of the 'five' would see any self-interest in giving up power (beyond the theoretical anyway...).

Likewise, any Charter that allowed an 'end run' around a veto would be seen by these powers as the same as giving up the veto. I suspect they would catch this approach possibility while scouring the fine print.

From what I see of the US, they have little faith in the world community to 'do the right thing' when it comes down to it (thus their reluctance to join such organizations as the World Court). Convincing them to put their security in the hands of an elected UN leader is a non-starter.

As I said earlier, I think we have to go this route eventually but the vetos will remain until the nations in question feel assured the 'new UN' is in their self interest. How do we accomplish this uphill task? I don't know.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 21:58

Wezil - A very good point, and we could, using both our diplomatic clout, and various economic incentives, deal outside the UN to make this happen. It would be an expense more than well justified in the long term, IMO, and if we set our minds to it, and appealed to world media to draw attention to the case, be something we could very likely push through, one way or another.

-=Vel=-

DaShi · February 10, 2003, 21:59

I nominate Senator Palpatine as the leader of this new UN.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 22:01

As to making the case that the new UN is in their best interests, I propose we appeal to their baser natures.

Greed.

We've got the resources to push the changes through, we just need to spend the coin to do it. Start witholding aid packages until we get the necessary changes pushed through to create an empowered UN. Offer MFN status and sweet deals to nations on the fence and make it happen.

Expensive? Yes. But no more so than 30billion a year for the war on terror, and with far better long term consequences. As an investment, strengthening the UN wins hands down.

-=Vel=-

Lord Merciless · February 10, 2003, 22:07

Vel, your plans would never work, because:
1. No major powers would ever accept it.
2. Countries don't trust each other.
3. The bureaucratic nightware would be horrendous.
4. Non-democratic countries would just form their own club and use WMD as a tool for blackmail.

Wezil · February 10, 2003, 22:09

Since the US is the main financial backer of the UN now (and would most certainly be of the 'new' forum if GDP is to be a determinant) greed won't work. They don't get UN 'aid' and saving the membership dues would put more money in their pockets.

Economic embargo of any nation that won't join? Maybe, but the cost to the worldwide economy would be astronomical. Even if this works it is coercive and counterproductive to developing the trust that would be required.

While I find the discussion of the various 'ins and outs' of setting up such an institution interesting, unless I can see a viable solution to the veto problem it is all just fanciful. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try however.

SpencerH · February 10, 2003, 22:10

Here's my plan to fix the UN:

1) The USA leaves the UN.
2) We tear down the UN building and kick all the UN freeloaders out of NY.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 22:14

Precisely why it must be a US led initiative for change. The USA would do much to bolster world opinion, because it would be seen as making some pretty substantial sacrifices to see the changes pushed through. All we'd need to get us started is a leader who was committed to helping the UN become the organization that it could be.

And LM, I disagree. The reasons I disagree are outlined in my "landscape" thread on this same topic. It is in EVERY nation's best interest to strengthen the UN, because it is in humanity's best interests (and there are some more practical reasons besides that).

A difficult proposition? Indeed, but one that is certainly worthy of the effort required.

-=Vel=-

Ned · February 10, 2003, 22:24

Yeah! The US adopts a policy of expansion by adding states who speak English and who are democratic. In three centuries, the US is the world government.

Wezil · February 10, 2003, 22:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Yeah! The US adopts a policy of expansion by adding states who speak English and who are democratic. In three centuries, the US is the world government.

With current US trends, in three centuries you will be speaking Spanish.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 22:33

Difficult though the problem of being done with the veto power may be, I still maintain that it is a solvable problem, even if the ultimate step must be taken, which would be to dismantle the current organization and re-create it with that power removed. I do not believe, however, that we'd need to do anything so extreme. As it stands now, the UN is a paper tiger, and so giving up veto powers in an organization isn't really giving up all that much, and if it were among the first steps taken, then no one would realize the eventual scope of the UN's powers. By the time they did, their veto power would be long gone....

-=Vel=-

Urban Ranger · February 10, 2003, 23:42

I also disgree with point 4, Vel, though I agree that the veto power of the permanent members should be removed.

Velociryx · February 10, 2003, 23:45

Sticking to my guns on it tho....to do anything less would be to legitimize theives of personal freedom and liberty.

-=Vel=-

Thorn · February 11, 2003, 15:17

I found the Charter for the UN made in 1945. I'm going to post my thoughts next time I get a chance. Anyway here is the link, hope you find it helpful in the meantime.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

and more information can be found at the main site here:

http://www.un.org/