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

[Che Guava]

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

Who is really neutral though? Don't you think it would be good to have a body who's job it is to be neutral...?

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.

You don't think there are certain rights that you have that you deserve, simply by the fact of being human? (not being snide, just want to clear it up...)

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

Fair enough, but I think an orgnaization to facilitate that could still be useful..

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.

Survivial of the fittest?

In all seriousness, doesn't that just divide the world more? I mean, if arab countries only get aid and suport from other arab/muslim nations and don't interact with cultures different from thiers, does that not breed mistrust and isolation form the rest of the international communitY (and I am assuming that that is a bad thing )

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 agree. I just thi that a body like the UN helps 'even out' that aid, so that one disease isn't ignored just because it afflicts a region that isn't as 'popular' as others....

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.

And yet governments like the U.S. continue to exist and thrive, even though americans don't care about anyone but themselves, and the federal government competes with state and numicipal bodies for authority (and of course this isn't exclusive to america, just an example) Why not apply this to a larger scale? After all, in the face of global warming and other 'global' concerns (epidemics, a globalized economy), should there not be at very least a place for eveyone to meet to discuss the issues?

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Who is really neutral though? Don't you think it would be good to have a body who's job it is to be neutral...?

I think it is sufficient for someone both nations regard as neutral. Ultimately, there is no fully neutral person, nation, or organisation. Everyone is biased in one way or another.

You don't think there are certain rights that you have that you deserve, simply by the fact of being human? (not being snide, just want to clear it up...)

Ultimately, there are none. We would all like to flatter ourselves that there are. Humans desire security, and the facade of inalienable rights make us feel some comfort. But when push comes to shove, it is an illusion. All "rights" can be taken away, limited, or abused.

Fair enough, but I think an orgnaization to facilitate that could still be useful..

Maybe, but ultimately both nations wuill have teams of diplomats working on it, I am sure they will be able to hammer out something mutually agreeable without the UN.

Survivial of the fittest?

In all seriousness, doesn't that just divide the world more? I mean, if arab countries only get aid and suport from other arab/muslim nations and don't interact with cultures different from thiers, does that not breed mistrust and isolation form the rest of the international communitY (and I am assuming that that is a bad thing )

Yes, it essentially is survival of the fittest. And there is nothing to prevent different cultures from interacting. Different cultures have interacted since the dawn of time. The human race is prone to fragmentation and quarreling. If you want to breed mistrust, breed humans. We have fought, and continue to fight over everything from valuable commodities to religion.

I agree. I just thi that a body like the UN helps 'even out' that aid, so that one disease isn't ignored just because it afflicts a region that isn't as 'popular' as others....

Maybe, but nations will want to send their aid to whoever they want to help, and will likely be simply annoyed by anyone trying to divert some from their intended benficiaries to even things out.

And yet governments like the U.S. continue to exist and thrive, even though americans don't care about anyone but themselves, and the federal government competes with state and numicipal bodies for authority (and of course this isn't exclusive to america, just an example) Why not apply this to a larger scale? After all, in the face of global warming and other 'global' concerns (epidemics, a globalized economy), should there not be at very least a place for eveyone to meet to discuss the issues?

The reason the US and other nations exist is because there is a common culture that makes people regard themselves as similar. In many respects, nations are an extension of tribes and families. We regard countrymen as related to us, even if only through culture. When a culture fragments, so does the nation. Why did Jugoslavia collapse? It was because no one really regarded themselves as Jugoslavs. They considered themselves as members of Jugoslavia's constituent nations, and once communism lost it's grip, the country disintigrated and the nations went their seperate ways. As for international discussions, the nations involved may simply hold a conference of world leaders to discuss whatever the matter is without needing to create a permanent hall.

 

[sonorakitch]

I would nominate Bolton to take my place.

Then, sit back and watch the carnage!

~Chris

 

[Verbose]

The reason the US and other nations exist is because there is a common culture that makes people regard themselves as similar. In many respects, nations are an extension of tribes and families. We regard countrymen as related to us, even if only through culture. When a culture fragments, so does the nation. Why did Jugoslavia collapse? It was because no one really regarded themselves as Jugoslavs. They considered themselves as members of Jugoslavia's constituent nations, and once communism lost it's grip, the country disintigrated and the nations went their seperate ways. As for international discussions, the nations involved may simply hold a conference of world leaders to discuss whatever the matter is without needing to create a permanent hall.

And yet at times the process works in reverse:

"We have created Italy. We must now create Italians." — Massimo d'Azeglio in the 1860's.

"Scappa! Que arriva La Patria!" (Run! It's the Fatherland coming!) — Unknown Sicilian mother to her adult son, re. compulsory military service, at about the same time. (Quoted after Hobsbawm.)

Lack of vision and ambition is what's preventing new and greater political entities than the present nation states from forming. Nothing else. The trend is towards "bigger is better" after all.

There's going to have to be some form of UN structure because the 19th c. order of like-minded great powers states and their sattelites forming great alliances led to said alliances eventually squaring off, with known results.

Not even the huge system of international congresses to discuss this, that and the other thing in the 19th c. was very efficient. For all its flaws even the League of Nations was better than that. The UN is lightyears ahead of it.

For some reason thinking back to how the world actually worked with no UN is strangely impopular. Or perhaps it's not so surprising, but rather an expression of how people living in countries stuck to Modernity view history; as something that has in fact ended, which means all the old, bad stuff has become irrelevant. The break-up of Yugoslavia is of course the great counter-example to that notion.

 

[Che Guava]

YOu've summed up my thoughts pretty well on the matter, Verbose. It gets me a little prickly when I hear people saying things like "The UN is doomed, people jsut don't get along, history shows that!" History also has some pretty nice examples of things like cannabalism (to take the extreme example) and yet we seem to have moved beyond that.

If we are ever going to be proper stewardsof this planet and ourselves, for that matter, we're going to have to learn to work together. HUmans have more in common with each other than differences, so it's time to start taking a good hard look at the common good.

 

[Kozmos]

What we need is aliens to attack us if we are to unite...

 

[Che Guava]

WHy should we wait for that? I think we are a greated threat to ourselves at the present...

 

[Evil Tyrant]

YOu've summed up my thoughts pretty well on the matter, Verbose. It gets me a little prickly when I hear people saying things like "The UN is doomed, people jsut don't get along, history shows that!" History also has some pretty nice examples of things like cannabalism (to take the extreme example) and yet we seem to have moved beyond that.

If we are ever going to be proper stewardsof this planet and ourselves, for that matter, we're going to have to learn to work together. HUmans have more in common with each other than differences, so it's time to start taking a good hard look at the common good.

Have we really moved on? Can you honestly say that with a straight face? That we have somehow moved beyond our blood-drenched past is not a new belief. Many in Europe believed that, before two world wars happened. Do not underestimate the darkness of the human soul. We still have genocide, war, and other assorted evils with no end in sight. If we have so much in common, why do we kill each other so readily? No, the UN is a futile endeavor. But I should stop hijacking your thread with my pessimistic view of humanity, and I'll try to end somewhat on-topic. As I see things, unless there is a single culture on earth, the UN will forever be impossible. A single culture will require only one government, which will make the UN viable. The way things are now, the UN is nothing but another battleground for nations to fight on. Replace the many nations with a single nation of earth, and it will succeed. But as you know, I doubt that will happen.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Step 1: Fire everyone EXCEPT: the New World (sans Cuba); Europe (sans Russia and Belarus); Turkey, Israel; South Africa and other African nations with free elections; Australia and New Zealand; Southeast Asian countries with free elections like Indonesia; India, Japan, South Korea, and Mongolia.

Step 2: Dissolve the Security Council

Step 3: Each nation may allocate however much money it wants to the UN each year.

Step 4: Each nation gets one vote for each dollar it donated and one vote for every 10,000 citizens.

Step 5: A Council is responsible for submitting budget allocation proposals in 4 categories: Peace, Justice & Rights, Economic Development, Health. These 4 Departments are each staffed by 4 councillors from different nations, who hold their seats for 4-year terms and must work together to propose legislation.

Step 6: There will be a (random) lottery every year to replace one councillor in each category (4 total). Each nation may submit only TWO councillors to the lottery however (could be both in one category to increase the odds, or in different categories). How a nation nominates candidate councillors is up to it (election, appointment etc.)

Step 7: Nations may be added or removed from the UN by unanimous vote.

Step 8: Done.

WHOOPS I FORGOT STEP NINE:

Step 9: Allocate a budget for shutting up emo teenagers who think they're being all Hobbesian by denying the existence of human rights. I dunno, buy them girlfriends or something.

 

[Ball Lightning]

Make Australia the sepreme country.

 

[scy12]

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

But the aims of Un organization are not only/always these . In it's today's state Un is nothing more than a puppet organization of a grand elite nations who control it. It could be wrong to say that Un doesn't have some times a humanitarian role but it really is not the core of the system.

There are several advantages that Un gives in that regard to the Grand Elite.


The problem of UN is that it is built on a set of rules and it is a part of a system which doesn't allow it to have more power as the Grand Elite as i call them desire. That is because UN takes it's power from them. Even if an appointed Un secretary general isn't a puppet of that Grand elite his power isn't important and doesn't last forever.

To summarize even if it does have the name United it never tried to be such a thing. That is create a federal government with the power to impose rules on all participants federal nations.

Apr 11, 2007 06:58 PM
Che Guava YOu've summed up my thoughts pretty well on the matter, Verbose. It gets me a little prickly when I hear people saying things like "The UN is doomed, people jsut don't get along, history shows that!" History also has some pretty nice examples of things like cannabalism (to take the extreme example) and yet we seem to have moved beyond that.

If we are ever going to be proper stewardsof this planet and ourselves, for that matter, we're going to have to learn to work together. HUmans have more in common with each other than differences, so it's time to start taking a good hard look at the common good.

The thing is while we may sometime look at the common good , the first reason people are learning to work together is profit. As i don't trust future generations or this one to always carry a relative moral compass we must create a system that does . I think "capitalism" can work to that direction provided Capitalism looks for the Greater Good not only in Eu or Usa but in Africa also . Now a corrupted , adivided and poor Africa supplies the capitalist world with it's rich resources while the continent is suffering.


What i recommend is the creation of several Federal Union Governments , similar to Eu. . A Pan-Arabic Union , Pan-African Union and A pan-Assian Union. Those Unions will impose several rules on those states that will improve infrastructure , freedom of speech and economical trade of each country by introducing the same currency etc. While each member as a rogue nation it could have to face dangers of War it would be stronger as a member of the union. The problem in Africa is that for the creation of such union the infrastructure to support it or the will must be there.

 

[Tee Kay]

I will dissolve the UN and replace it with a better organisation.

 

[Zarn]

No UN. Just GDI. It would make it actually effective.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

No UN. Just GDI. It would make it actually effective.

I had no idea what the hell the GDI was before this thread, but seeing as how it's essentially the UN with some actual significance behind it's words, I would support that.

The UN is a failure in preventing human rights abuses world wide. I don't expect it to fix the whole world, but I do expect it to do something.

 

[Che Guava]

Evil Tyrant: No worries abour threadjacking: it's relevant discussion! I do infact beleive that we've moved on. Even the facade of human rights is a step, because people can agree that at very least people of all types deserve some kind of minimum respect. As for a single 'global culture', I call that humanity: people have much more in common than we'd like to beleive, but once we get over ourselves a little bit, I think we can get to that...

scy12: You can certainly make the argument that the U.N. only serves the 'grand elite' (whatever that is...the permanent members of the security council...?), but certainly if you could remake it in any way you want, you could come up with something to balance out power.

As for the Federal union governments, take a look: most of those already exist, even in africa, where the African Union is engaged in peacekeeping missions and economic development...

GoodEnoughForMe: Another vote for a U.N. with teeth! Just a question: who would the armed forces of the UN report to? The secretary general, the general assembly the security council..?

 

[Brighteye]

Step 9: Allocate a budget for shutting up emo teenagers who think they're being all Hobbesian by denying the existence of human rights. I dunno, buy them girlfriends or something.

He's right. There is no such thing as a fundamental human right. We can create rights that are effectively universal by having every nation agree to them, but the rights come from the nations' agreement, not a priori.

This is one use for the UN, the others being addressing global warming, health issues and international crime/armament.
I would employ nations' soldiers on short-term contracts as a UN army and enforce relative peace in conflicts by destroying any organised armies.
I'd have infectious diseases pursued and eliminated, with the backing of trade embargos and even the army, if necessary.
I would give lots of money to the BBC world service, making them an objective, effective and informative media service for every nation; any nation that tried to prevent its citizens listening to the new UN news would be punished with embargos and/or war.
Basically a UN with teeth, focussing on health, global warming and unbiased news transmission. The last may sound silly, but if the UN could give everyone in the world the ability to listen to objective views without propaganda I think that it would be surprisingly effective in restraining excessive dictatorships and theocracies.

 

[Che Guava]

Brighteye: conflict resolution/peacekeeping not a priority?

As for fundemental human rights, of course they'll only really be derived from actual agreements between nations, but I still thin that's a pretty positive thing!

 

[Kozmos]

War is good for business. I see no reason why we must rush to end it.

 

[Che Guava]

Yeah, what's human suffering compared to $ profit.....

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

(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!

I wouldn't do anything. The Secretary-General is just a spokesman and organizer. He has no actual power to do anything. I would collect my salary and pretend to be working.