As you may know, the UN was chartered after the second world war. For several reasons, but primarily to hinder another global conflict by having the representatives of the major powers more or less permanently in a situation of dialogue in a set forum, aka the Security Counsil. As this was the second stab at making a proper world forum, it did learn a few lessons from its much shorter lived predecessor, the League of Nations. The LoN essentially broke down, when nazi-Germany and Imperialist Japan decided cooperation with the rest of the world was not in their interest, and in either case they had little influence over the LoN. At least, not as much as they'd like to have. Which is why one today have granted Veto-rights to the major powers in the UN-SC. But anyhow, my take on the current UN: The Good: The UN is a major player in giving humanitarian and disaster aid around the world. Not to mention being the keeper of the human-rights and childrens-rights charter. Also it being an international forum of debate between nations, it can ideally function as a mediator and assistant in defusing contentious issues. The Bad: The UN model, especially in the security counsil is heavily slanted towards the situation immidiatly after WW2. Now, some 63 years after, it is time to revise. Take away veto and permanent seat in the SC from some, and give it to others. In my view, those with permanent seats and veto should now be: USA EU Russia India China Permanent seats (but no veto) should also be given Japan as it is an economic powerhouse, and perhaps even Israel, if for no other reason than it is the most powerful state in the middle east which is a hot-zone of conflict and Israel is the target of much of that hostility. The UK and France (current veto-powers) would get their interests met via the EU. The Ugly: Essentially the UN is a huge beurocracy. It needs some serious slimming down to be effective and able to respond to occuring situations in a pragmatic manner. It could learn a lesson or two from the International Red Cross on how to do international aid work. Today the UN is top-heavy. Lots of red-tape, and very little action when considering the resources they gobble up each year. Resources that would be better spent on the ground where needed, rather than keeping the paper-mill running.
I agree it needs reforming but I don't think you'll see France and the UK giving up their veto powers and force them to have to include the desires of Bulgaria (for example) in their decisions. It is hard to reform something when the people you want to take away power can veto that very concept.
Everything we really need to know about the U.N., and its relevance to the superpowers in charge, is contained in this article. Remember when Bush just lied right to their faces? Not even attempting to conceal his bullshit? Here's a walk down memory lane for you, from back when some folks still believed the lies, or pretended to. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/bal-te.bush13sep13,1,3392574.story?page=1 U.N. must act, Bush says, or U.S. will Bold, quick action needed to disarm Iraq, he says; U.N.'s reputation at stake; 'A decade of defiance'; Bush suggests U.S. ready to topple Hussein alone By David L. Greene |Sun National Staff September 13, 2002 President Bush, addressing the United Nations General Assembly, casts the Iraqi leader's defiance of U.N. resolutions as a test of the international body's relevance. (AP photo / September 12, 2002) UNITED NATIONS - President Bush demanded yesterday that the United Nations act boldly and quickly to disarm Iraq, warning that the international body's reputation was at stake and that yielding to Saddam Hussein's regime could render the United Nations "irrelevant." Speaking at the General Assembly to officials of 190 countries, Bush said he would work with them - at least for now - to exert diplomatic pressure on Hussein. The Iraqi leader, the president said, must destroy his weapons of mass destruction and end his decade-long defiance of other U.N. demands. Though Bush set no deadlines, he made clear that his clock is ticking. He implied that if the United Nations failed to act with haste - or if Hussein ignored any new U.N. resolution - the United States was ready to act alone to oust his regime, which Bush called a "grave and gathering danger." "The purposes of the United States should not be doubted," he said. "The just demands of peace and security will be met - or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power." One senior administration official said that while Bush "is not anxious to go to war," he is deeply skeptical that Hussein will ever abide by U.N. demands. He said Bush is prepared to use U.S. force, with or without backing from other countries. Using stern language, Bush cast Hussein's decision to defy U.N. resolutions as a critical test of the United Nations' relevance. He argued that Iraq's pursuit of dangerous weapons is "exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront" and that now was a "defining moment" for the international body. "Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance," Bush said. "Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" Some world leaders say they wonder whether a forced removal of Hussein would violate international law. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, speaking before Bush yesterday, said that "individual states may defend themselves" if they are attacked, but that in all other cases, military force must be supported formally by a body such as the United Nations. White House lawyers have argued otherwise, insisting that Bush would have the right to invade Iraq if he concluded that Hussein threatened Americans or U.S. interests. Iraqi officials scoffed at Bush's speech and continued to deny that they possess weapons of mass destruction. Bush "chooses to deceive the world and his own people by the longest series of fabrication that [has] ever been told by the leader of a nation," said Mohammed al-Douri, Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations. "We don't care about the position of the U.S. If they are threatening, if they would attack, certainly we will be there for defending ourselves." Aides noted that Bush has fulfilled a pledge to begin consulting with lawmakers and world leaders before taking action on Iraq. They said, for example, that the president came here with no specific idea for a new Security Council resolution. They said he wanted instead to let the council deliberate on whether sending weapons inspectors back to Iraq, or trying some new way to pressure Hussein to disarm, would be most effective. Aides also pointed out that the president opened a debate with Congress last week to discuss Iraq. At that time, Bush urged lawmakers to pass a resolution, before they recess next month, that would give him the option of using military force. Members of Congress in both parties cheered Bush's decision to consult with the United Nations. But, revealing a rift between the parties, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat, suggested that Congress wait for the United Nations to respond to Bush's calls to action before voting to authorize a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. "A lot of members are looking for some indication of the degree of support we can expect from the United Nations, from the international community, prior to the time we commit resources and troops to this effort," Daschle said. Other Democrats argued that lawmakers could not make an informed decision on the use of force until they know where U.S. allies stand. Republicans called for a vote by mid-October in support of Bush's stance, authorizing the potential use of military force. "We must vote to show support for the president right now," said Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, who said Republican leaders would work on the wording of such a resolution "over the next few days." In some ways, Bush's address bore similarity to a major speech he delivered last September, listing demands of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that he doubted they would abide by, including that they expel all terrorists. Two weeks later, the United States began bombing Afghanistan to force the Taliban from power. Aides pointed to two new pieces of evidence in Bush's remarks: that Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons and that it possesses what Bush described as "a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N." Recent intelligence about those activities were declassified, aides said, allowing Bush to discuss them yesterday. Bush also referred for the first time yesterday to a 1993 assassination attempt on "a former American president" that was linked to Iraq. Aides said the president deliberately decided not to mention specifically that the target had been his father, George H.W. Bush. "Obviously," said one senior administration official, "one doesn't want to appear to personalize this."
The fact that people even want a unifying world organization is scary. I don't like my local, state, or federal government, why would I want a global one? We are moving the wrong way politically. We should not be focusing on governing everyone, we should be focused on governing ourselves. I know this story is completely unrelated but it sends the same message. Me and 2 of my friends were driving 15 miles through a neighborhood (that had plenty of room on the road). A mother of some child was watching us and told us to slow down in a very rude manner. I had half a mind to get out and tell her to parent her own fucking kids and don't let them play in the street. Who the fuck is she? I understand that she cares about the safety of her children, but that is who she needs to be "teaching," not us. The entire world is out governing everyone else, and not themselves.
So you don't like your government, cool i don't like mine either. I think the same can be said by the majority of 'governed' people the world over. I'd rather dislike one government than 192 or whatever it is and think on the wars it would cut down on. Of course it would have to be a secular government with no power given to any non-secular group and with no bias of a particular geographic location.
Would agree with you on nearly all apart from making Israel a permanent member.. But thats for another thread.. The UK and France should be repersented by the EU now.. The powers of the UN should be tightened so we do not have a repeat of the disgraceful scenes before the Iraq war..