How does the UN actually work?

[DrJambo]

How does the UN actually work?

Say 6 civs, what constitutes a majority vote?

 

[Richard III]

With a title like that, this should really be redirected to the "humor and jokes" thread.

 

[Hamlet]

Many of us have often asked this very same question.

 

[DrJambo]

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

51% it is. Thus, if only you and another civ are left, no win is possible

 

[Catt]

It's a simply majority (half + 1) of all remaining civs. With 6 left you need 4 affirmative votes (same if there were 7 civs).

Note that it is not a majority of actual votes for a candidate. With 9 civs voting, 4 votes for you, 1 vote for an opponent, and 4 abstentions means an inconclusive vote, and you will have to wait for the next opportuntity to win the vote.

(Richard III )

 

[DrJambo]

thanks Catt, that rings the bell...

 

[jpowers]

The UN works by begging the US for billions of dollars and then doing anything the US wants while it waits for the check. Maybe if the EU or China would agree to foot the bill some day, the UN would do whatever they want...

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

that is the EU making the US bleed

seriously, if a rich country liekt eh US doesn't pay its UN bills (the Eu does, btw), whose the US then to ***** about the UN?????????

I think most US citizens should one day realize that they aren't Gods elected anymore than any other human (or animal or plant, btw) anwhere else....

 

[Catt]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
seriously, if a rich country liekt eh US doesn't pay its UN bills (the Eu does, btw), whose the US then to ***** about the UN?????????

I think most US citizens should one day realize that they aren't Gods elected anymore than any other human (or animal or plant, btw) anwhere else....

Membership in the UN is entirely voluntary. Maybe its a good thing that the US is a member and contributes, even if it does occasionally withhold its dues as a form of protest. While the US specifically objects to certain actions / agencies for political / moral / social reasons - and withholds specific funds from these programs - the "member dues holdback" protest is focused on forcing the UN to operate more efficiently - something Kofi Annan has agreed is much needed, and something that received almost no attention before Annan's election (results to date under Annan are not great, but at least there's now lip service to reform - before there was nothing).

It rankles me personally to no end to see some of the expense policies employed by the UN - UN staff fly first-class around the world, stay in the better hotels when they do travel, and have extraordinarily permissive expense reimbursement policies. Travel with some of these guys sometime (even low-level staffers) and ponder if UN dues are being used efficiently - the most permissive Fortune 100 companies worldwide don't have employee expense policies as generous as the UN's. The multiple levels of bureaucracy between the "doers" at the bottom and the "planners" at the top is shameful - no private enterprise could function at this level of waste, and even the American governement (which many US citizens will complain loudly is a bureaucratic morass) is a lean, mean machine compared to portions of the UN.

Staff perks are a relatively small drop in the bucket of total UN expenditures, but IMHO are a great indicator of overall enterprise culture and belief - the organization is certainly not run by penny-pinchers and, absent members withholding dues, there is no incentive to better manage member dues as there is no accountability for inefficiency (no stockholders or electorate to answer to! - what a great job for a manager!). Those providing the money have a right to demand some form of accountability from those spending the money - without dues withholding, there is no effective manner to demand accountability (as the US learned by regularly complaining each year about UN budegting without any behavioral change until a serious backlog of withheld dues had piled up). It would seem to be so obvious as to be embarassing to have to state it, but anyone entrusted with the right to manage others' property (whether private or public sector) must be accountable to someone, preferably those whose property is being managed - the UN still isn't.

As I said to open the post, membership in the UN is voluntary. The US contributes 25% of total UN dues - the rest of the world contributes 75%. And the US donates hundreds of millions of additional dollars each year to various NGOs and quasi-governmental agencies, some under UN auspices and others not directly under UN control, but retaining the "flavor" of international multilateralism and decision-making.

Surely it's preferable to keep the US as a key anchor in the UN and put up with the occasional US dues holdback rather than (1) asking the US electorate to "send the cash and quit complaining," or (2) encourage the US to pick up its marbles and go home?

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Catt: you caught me

It's FUN to be a devils advocate sometimes

 

[Catt]

I know . I was just having fun too!

 

[Dran]

The US contributes 25% of total UN dues - the rest of the world contributes 75%.

I know this is off topic and inflammatory, but something about the US and 25% reminds me of the proportion of the world's greenhouse gases the US produces, and although it is the world's biggest greenhouse polluter by far and the world's richest country it regards the Kyoto protocol as too expensive to implement.

I think Civ3 should bias the cost of dealing with global warming to the Americans