Congratulations! You've been made SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE U.N!

[Che Guava]

Howdy folks! Y'know, it seems whenever our beloved United Nations is brought up here in discussion, the only thing that everyone seems to agree on is that as an organization, it is weak, inneffective, irrelevent, or any combination of the above. What seems to lack in the discussion, however, is how it could be improved. So here's our chance...

Through some grave clerical error in counting votes, YOU have been elected as the secretary general of the U.N. and given (temporary) supreme executive powers over the management of the organization. Being a long-time vocal critic of the organization you decide it is time for reform, and you immediately set out a proposal to drastically increase the effectiveness of the organization as a whole.

Keep in mind that the aims/goals of the organization remain the same: if nothing else, the U.N. should focus its energy on:

(1) Preventing war
(2) Safeguarding Human rights
(3) Providing some kind of forum/body for international law
(4) Promoting Social/Economic progress of its members
(5) Improving living standards for all people and fighting disease

So how would YOU reform the U.N. so it could better meet those 5 goals (without tossing the whole thing in the trash, of course!)? Changing the weight of member votes? Getting rid of veto powers on the security council? Excluding members based on domestic treatment of citizens?

Make a proposal, then be prepared to defend it and attack others'!

GO!

 

[Joe Harker]

1) Give all nukes to them
2) Give the International court rights to trial anyone it so pleases
3), point 2
4) Make it law under punishment of being blown to bits of having some form of representation for the people
5) Stop giving antibiotics to people with viruses

Haven't really thought this through though

 

[Kozmos]

Reform into GDI.

 

[Che Guava]

1) Give all nukes to them
2) Give the International court rights to trial anyone it so pleases
3), point 2
4) Make it law under punishment of being blown to bits of having some form of representation for the people
5) Stop giving antibiotics to people with viruses

Haven't really thought this through though

Aaaaah..the 'direct' approach. I think you might be pretty lonely at UN headquarters once everyone gets wind of this proposal

Reform into GDI.

GDI? Care to elaborate?

 

[CCA]

Aaaaah..the 'direct' approach. I think you might be pretty lonely at UN headquarters once everyone gets wind of this proposal



GDI? Care to elaborate?

GDI:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Defense_Initiative

 

[Che Guava]

GDI:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Defense_Initiative

I see! So so far it looks as though people want a U.N. with more teeth. ANyone disagree with that..?

 

[Bamspeedy]

I would kick out many members. Right now everyone is a member except for who, Western Sahara?

The members that would remain in the UN would look more like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Freedom_House_world_map_2007.png

There may be a few exceptions to the map, but generally it should be: Green you are in, orange maybe (case by case basis), and red is out.

 

[skadistic]

Dissolve the UN and start over.

 

[Che Guava]

I would kick out many members. Right now everyone is a member except for who, Western Sahara?

The members that would remain in the UN would look more like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Freedom_House_world_map_2007.png

There may be a few exceptions to the map, but generally it should be: Green you are in, orange maybe (case by case basis), and red is out.

So what you are saying is that you would restrict membership to those that have a certain human rights standard. DO you think that this might make the organization even more irrelevent by reducing its membership by that much?

Dissolve the UN and start over.

That's a cop-out! What would the 'start-over' option look like?

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Streamline embezzlement.

On a more serious note, I simply wouldn't take the job. If I was given full power over the UN, I would disband it. I do not like the concept of the UN, nor do I support most of it's goals.

1. Preventing war is the business of nations involved in a dispute.
2. I would do a bad job of safeguarding human rights, seeing as I do not believe in them.
3. International law would fall under diplomacy, and is the business of nations involved. Even then it is more on the lines of a gentleman's agreement than a law.
4. A nation's development is the business of it's government.
5. Same as above.

 

[Che Guava]

Streamline embezzlement.

On a more serious note, I simply wouldn't take the job. If I was given full power over the UN, I would disband it. I do not like the concept of the UN, nor do I support most of it's goals.

Fair enough, but let's take a look at your points anyhow...

1. Preventing war is the buisiness of nations involved in a dispute.

That's not going to change no matter what structure is in place. But don't you think they at least deserve a neutrel mediator to make the process more effective?

2. I would do a bad job of safeguarding human rights, seeing as I do not believe in them.

Too bad, I bet you enjoy them

3. International law would fall under diplomacy, and is the business of nations involved. Even then it is more on the lines of a gentleman's agreement than a law.

On that level, its always going to be a 'gentleman's agreement', seeing as national army's generally outpower the UN's. But again, would at least a semblance of international agreements, wheter they be for war, trade, or whatever, be beneficial for all involved, if for no other reason just to spell out common ground between partners..?

4. A nation's development is the business of it's government.

No nation is an island (insert hilarious pun here). SOme need help. Where do they get it?

5. Same as above.

Isn't it in everyone's interest to get rid of, oh say, smallpox?

 

[Bamspeedy]

So what you are saying is that you would restrict membership to those that have a certain human rights standard. DO you think that this might make the organization even more irrelevent by reducing its membership by that much?

How can nations with massive human rights violations also claim to be safeguarding human rights, which is one of the goals of the UN?

 

[Che Guava]

How can nations with massive human rights violations also claim to be safeguarding human rights, which is one of the goals of the UN?

How can we expect them to change thier minds if we exclude them completely? Don't we preach to the heathen, and not the choir..?

 

[Bamspeedy]

How can we expect them to change thier minds if we exclude them completely? Don't we preach to the heathen, and not the choir..?

If we accept them as members they say to themselves "See, they accept us for what we do" and they have no motivation to change. If they want to be a member, they need to change.

 

[Che Guava]

If we accept them as members they say to themselves "See, they accept us for what we do" and they have no motivation to change. If they want to be a member, they need to change.

Fair enough, but then you should have some pretty decent incentives to join the U.N. in your proposal. Otherwise, why would they care?

 

[Princeps]

I would dissolve the veto power and the security council as well -- most Americans would be backing me too, I believe.

 

[Che Guava]

I would dissolve the veto power and the security council as well -- most Americans would be backing me too, I believe.

I dunno...the american delegation does like to use that veto...why do you tink it would be a good idea?

ANy other reccomendations?

 

[Princeps]

I dunno...the american delegation does like to use that veto...

What I mean was that most Americans would agree with me, I didn't not say that the ruling elite would like what I'd do.

 

[Che Guava]

What I mean was that most Americans would agree with me, I didn't not say that the ruling elite would like what I'd do.

Ok, but explain to me why it would be a good idea to get rid of the vetos. (and that's open to anyone who wants to answer!)

 

[Evil Tyrant]

That's not going to change no matter what structure is in place. But don't you think they at least deserve a neutrel mediator to make the process more effective?

If the nations involved wish a mediator, they can select a nation both regard as neutral.

Too bad, I bet you enjoy them

On the contrary. Such rights as I enjoy are a product of my being a US citizen in US territory, not because I am a human being. Even the rights I have are ephemeral and will only last as long as the government feels it either necessary or convenient to aknowledge them.

On that level, its always going to be a 'gentleman's agreement', seeing as national army's generally outpower the UN's. But again, would at least a semblance of international agreements, wheter they be for war, trade, or whatever, be beneficial for all involved, if for no other reason just to spell out common ground between partners..?

Such matters will be worked out during the negotiation of a treaty.

No nation is an island (insert hilarious pun here). SOme need help. Where do they get it?

They must use the resources they have. If there are other nations with similar ethnic or ideological background, they might be able to get help from them.

Isn't it in everyone's interest to get rid of, oh say, smallpox?

You are correct that ridding the world of smallpox is beneficial to everyone. However, there is nothing preventing individual nations from sending help if they wish, and charitable organisations also exist. Ultimately though, governments are concerned with their own people not other nations.

I know my thoughts must sound harsh or cruel, but I think that this is the natural state of mankind and nations. No one really cares about anyone but themselves and their friends. The only way for anything like the UN to really work is to abolish individual nations and governments. And that is just not going to happen.