The reforms UN needs

Squonk

Deity
Joined
Apr 6, 2002
Messages
2,506
Location
Poland
Hi

This is just a couple of simple ideas your opinion about which I would like to know.

1) UN should have some actual, own, army, located in several places, and be able to actually intervene where it's needed.

2) UN should have a proper founding. Like 0,5% of each member-state's budget, and more, 1% of those in the Security Council

3) Security Council should be reformed. Yes, major powers should be there, but there should be no veto, but perhaps veto for the Security Council as a whole. And some countries should be added there as permanent members; undoubtly India. When it comes to other candidatures it's not that obvious. But there should always be a representative of Subsaharean Africa, of Arab World, and of South-East Asia, and of South America, of Middle America (by which I mean Mexico to Nicaragua or Panama), perhaps also of eastern part of the Muslim world (Iran to Kazakhstan and Pakistan) and of Central Europe, but perhaps there should be rotation amongst them, favouring the biggest ones (Mexico, Brazil)
And this is apart or not apart from temporary members.
In fact I believe USA, UK etc should also not be permanent, or even Russia, but it would not be realistic to exclude them even from time to time.

4) Major historical monuments, especially the ones in UNESCO list, should be under UN military protection. In case of a conflict inside a country that hosts them, even if UN doesn't intervene, UN forces should be sent there to protect them and immediate surrounding from harm.

5) There should be some rules established of solving territorial disputes. I actually have an idea, which is that in case of a mixed population areas, one should take the ratio of the people inhabiting this area and claiming them; when it comes to the nations not claiming them, they could chose who they are giving their votes to, or remain neutral etc. Then one would sum up the ratios and a nation would receive as many districts / municipalities as it gets 100%s. Obviously if there's a major city that is an ethnic exclave, some additional provisions perhaps have to be made, perhapscounting them as several districts.

So if there'ss province that has 3 municipalities in which one has 40% Xuxu nation, 55% Zizi nation, and 5% Ferfelefen nation,

another which has 20% Xuxu, 75% Zizi and 5% Ferfelefen

and another which has 40% Xuxu, 55% Zizi and 5% Ferfelefen

Then Xuxu should get 40+20+40=100% = 1 municipality

Zizi should get 75+55+55=185% = 1,85 municipality

Ferfelefen should get 5+5+5=15% = 0.15 municipality. If that makes any sense, they could get a tiny country, or they chould throw their votes with Xuxu or Zizi.

Then PERHAPS there should be an exchange of populations.

I think it's a strange way, but it makes some sense. Because Zizi, which would constitute a fragile majority in all three municipalities would obviously demand all of them, which would be unfair towards Xuxu. On another hand, Xuxu are almost a half in two municipalities, and would probably like to claim them both. But it wouldn't be fair towards Zizi.

When it comes to the point which municipality should Xuxu get, it should be a matter of discussion, in which cultural centres and historical monuments of respective civilisation should be taken into account.

Just some ideas, I'm obviously not a specialist on UN, so this may be silly. Share your thoughts, please.
 
While I'd rather abolish the UN, I think the most reasonable reform would be that the voting weights in all general assembly resolutions are based on GDP. Otherwise, give every single nation a veto.
 
We need to abolish it entirely and replace it with regional powers such as the AU, OAS, EU, etc that have primary concern over their regions and can deal with the other regional powers for truly global issues or if they need help within their own region.

Keep the non-diplomatic stuff, that's fine, they do good work (UNESCO, World Heritage Sites, that stuff) but remove any true authority it has on the international scale. Well, I mean it doesn't really have any any we here in the USA blow it off anyway when it isn't convenient for us, which is a good thing, so I guess in the end it doesn't really matter.
 
We need to abolish it entirely and replace it with regional powers such as the AU, OAS, EU, etc that have primary concern over their regions and can deal with the other regional powers for truly global issues or if they need help within their own region.

That would cause huge issues should there ever be disagreements between powers from different continents.

All the UN is meant to be is a forum where these players can meet at and discuss their problems at. If you disband it, you've got to create some sort of other global forum for these people to meet and hash out their differences.

And no matter what you call that forum, it's going to pretty much be sort of like the United Nations. So why abolish it, if you're just going to put up something just like it instead? Might as well reform it instead.

Not that reform is really possible, because the countries with vetos will never give them up.
 
The UN seems like a bloody stupid idea to me. A noble idea for sure, but not practical. Whenever a crisis occurs that the UN has to deal with, there are invariably some countries whose interests lies with the human rights abusing side and some with the rebels. The UN in such a case can't call an intervention or it risks alienating the members whose interests lie in the opposite side. And if one of those members happen to hold a veto...

So when a UN resolution for humanitarian aid is successfully passed, this means one of two things- either the country in question is a security threat to all the important members, in which case it is difficult to imagine why intervention hadn't happened earlier, or the country in question doesn't matter to the major players, in which case the response will be flaccid as in the case of Rwanda.

Perhaps an area of reform could be that the UN doesn't interfere with a nation's government, but instead provides humanitarian aid for refugees instead, ensuring that refugees in a struggle are treated well.
 
How did the OP know that I originally come from Ferfelefia? That's spooky. I didn't think anyone else had ever heard of the place.
 
The general problem with the reforming of the UN is that you face one insurmountable issue...if it is assigned a peacekeeping role and armed for the task, it must be sufficiently armed that it can treat every nation equally. So your choices are what we have now (no arms) or sufficient arms to provide a functional deterrent against the USA.

Okay, so now that we know arming the UN at the level required isn't happening we can move on.
 
Le mystère du voix bulgare. That sounds remarkably like Bulgarian folk music. But it seems it's medieval Castilian. (I think. From the comments.)
 
To be fair, the elements that are featuring in Bulgarian folk music aren't unique or new or some kind of amazing space reasons that friendly people inside our country think make our music magical or something.
 
Honestly the biggest problem is permanent member veto power, basically neuters the entire organization in the exact situations you sort of need it to be involved.
 
Honestly the biggest problem is permanent member veto power, basically neuters the entire organization in the exact situations you sort of need it to be involved.

The veto power is just an acknowledgement of reality. UN issues a sanction prohibiting arms sales to Israel...what's going to happen? The US will blow it off, and everyone knows it. So the UN is left with either getting publicly blown off, or rising up on their hind legs and kicking out the world's largest arms dealer and having no influence over them at all.

So the US gets to veto anything they are not going to do anyway, and the UN maintains at least a little credibility. It's no coincidence that the five largest arms dealing nations in the world have the veto. If any one of them doesn't agree to not arm somebody, that somebody is gonna get armed.
 
While I'd rather abolish the UN, I think the most reasonable reform would be that the voting weights in all general assembly resolutions are based on GDP. Otherwise, give every single nation a veto.

Then it would end as the Polish parliament in the XVII-XVIII centuries, where everyone had a veto power...
 
Then it would end as the Polish parliament in the XVII-XVIII centuries, where everyone had a veto power...

The UN has no external enemies, while the Commonwealth had. Enfin, the UN lacks the political coherence and unity to implement your proposals. As Reagan (and Half-Life 2) noted, we need hostile space aliens to bring the necessary political unity.
 
That would cause huge issues should there ever be disagreements between powers from different continents.

All the UN is meant to be is a forum where these players can meet at and discuss their problems at. If you disband it, you've got to create some sort of other global forum for these people to meet and hash out their differences.

This. UN serves as a wonderful forum for all nations and all types of regimes. And it serves this role well.
 
The UN may need a lot of reforms, but I think people saying it's useless just haven't read a lot about history or have a very myopic view about how things happened when there was no international body at least trying to keep things in a vaguely legal canvas.
 
The UN may need a lot of reforms, but I think people saying it's useless just haven't read a lot about history or have a very myopic view about how things happened when there was no international body at least trying to keep things in a vaguely legal canvas.

Totally accurate.
 
This. UN serves as a wonderful forum for all nations and all types of regimes. And it serves this role well.

The UN may need a lot of reforms, but I think people saying it's useless just haven't read a lot about history or have a very myopic view about how things happened when there was no international body at least trying to keep things in a vaguely legal canvas.

Before the UN and before even the League of Nations, there were numerous diplomatic congresses that served the same purposes rather well. These would only meet after a major event (i.e. the Congress of Vienna after the Napoleonic wars) so they did not have the possibility into a permanent political tool that is intended for abuse.
 
Before the UN and before even the League of Nations, there were numerous diplomatic congresses that served the same purposes rather well. These would only meet after a major event (i.e. the Congress of Vienna after the Napoleonic wars) so they did not have the possibility into a permanent political tool that is intended for abuse.
Guess it goes hand-in-hand with your romanticized vision of the past.
 
Top Bottom