What should the role of the UN be?

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » November 22, 2004, 1:26 am

First there must be the existence of the UN in these times(WHO, humanitarian aid, international law, peacekeeping, fighting terrorism?) . If you think there shouldn't well don't bother talking to me. I want to hear opinions on how the UN should combat terrorism, and how they should try to keep peace in the world. Personally I don't know enough to answer the question.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » November 22, 2004, 11:26 am

My quick suggestion from work:

- Remove veto rights.
- Establish some sort of written guidelines for punishment if a country does not follow UN decissions.
- Better internal review and control system to limit/reduce corruption.
- Standing military force to send in as peace keepers when needed on a very short notice. Must train together to be effective.
- Countries must follow UN decissions not only when they agree with it but also when they disagree.
- Role of UN: Peacekeepers, organize aid programs, work on balancing the world more economically, work on limiting pollution, be a global organization for research and technological advancements.

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » November 22, 2004, 11:48 am

This may be slightly off-topic, but I think that it's worth pointing out the success of the <a href="http://www.mfo.org">Multinational Force and Observers</a> in the Sinai. They've been doing the peacekeeping thing in the Sinai for almost 25 years, and nobody seems to ever think about them...probably because it just works.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » November 22, 2004, 12:02 pm

Kelshara wrote:My quick suggestion from work:

- Remove veto rights.
- Establish some sort of written guidelines for punishment if a country does not follow UN decissions.
- Better internal review and control system to limit/reduce corruption.
- Standing military force to send in as peace keepers when needed on a very short notice. Must train together to be effective.
- Countries must follow UN decissions not only when they agree with it but also when they disagree.
- Role of UN: Peacekeepers, organize aid programs, work on balancing the world more economically, work on limiting pollution, be a global organization for research and technological advancements.

-Removing veto rights would result in countries backing the UN a lot less.
-The UN is not there to police the world. Membership is not mandatory, punishments would only harm the weaker countries.
-That one sounds ok
-Too many conflicting ideologies
-Countries will only agree if it doesnt hurt their bottom line too much.
-Completely agree with that but the grey areas of peace keepers.

Once again I posted this quickly, pick apart as you please

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » November 22, 2004, 1:23 pm

Oh yeah forgot it is up to the US to police the world.. what was I thinking!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » November 22, 2004, 1:41 pm

The UN should hold my dick while I pee.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » November 22, 2004, 1:45 pm

masteen wrote:The UN should hold my dick while I pee.

I thought that was Sylvos' job? o_O

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » November 22, 2004, 2:35 pm

Kelshara wrote:Oh yeah forgot it is up to the US to police the world.. what was I thinking!

uh huh, tell me where I said that.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » November 22, 2004, 2:38 pm

Sionistic wrote:
Kelshara wrote:My quick suggestion from work:

- Remove veto rights.
- Establish some sort of written guidelines for punishment if a country does not follow UN decissions.
- Better internal review and control system to limit/reduce corruption.
- Standing military force to send in as peace keepers when needed on a very short notice. Must train together to be effective.
- Countries must follow UN decissions not only when they agree with it but also when they disagree.
- Role of UN: Peacekeepers, organize aid programs, work on balancing the world more economically, work on limiting pollution, be a global organization for research and technological advancements.
-Removing veto rights would result in countries backing the UN a lot less.
-The UN is not there to police the world. Membership is not mandatory, punishments would only harm the weaker countries.
-That one sounds ok
-Too many conflicting ideologies
-Countries will only agree if it doesnt hurt their bottom line too much.
-Completely agree with that but the grey areas of peace keepers.

Once again I posted this quickly, pick apart as you please

If you removed veto rights, every major country would not only back the UN less, they would remove themselves entirely.

I guarentee you that no country will agree to be a part of a group that can override its decisions without the ability to veto completely. Just not feasable.

Oh. . .and the UN does not exist to police the world. If that was the plan, it would have to be changed completely.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » November 22, 2004, 3:16 pm

The UN should be an organization that would hold true to its stated principles.

http://www.un.org/Overview/brief.html

Click the link Millenium Declaration.

However the UN must be willing to back its resolutions with force. Without political influence. To this end I agree that the veto should be removed.

Frankly, the UN seems to be a toothless waste of money and resources. It will remain this way until such time that all countries fall into line under the global governance of the UN.

Africa, should be the focus of this body. Troops sent to protect innocents, food and medicine and infrastructure addressed. Rebels and militant groups forced to disarm or die. A no nonsense approach to this region where the attrocities continue and no one seems to give a rats ass.

Avestan, the following is an excerpt from the original Charter;

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

Charter of the United Nations
Chapter VII

Action With Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40

In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 43

1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 44

When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfillment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.

So as you can see the UN was set up to be the police of the world.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » November 22, 2004, 3:29 pm

Avestan wrote: Oh. . .and the UN does not exist to police the world. If that was the plan, it would have to be changed completely.

Yeah, we got the US for that.......

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » November 22, 2004, 4:06 pm

I see it as an oreganization that stops genocide and works to protect groups like he Red Cross, CARE, other humanitarian groups.

I assume that understanding what the organization does and does not do will help with the UNs perception. Frankly I'm unclear.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » November 22, 2004, 4:17 pm

The UN should play the schoolgirl while the US plays the perv teacher.

Know your Role.

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » November 22, 2004, 4:22 pm

I'm clear now .. and also have a chubby.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » November 22, 2004, 5:14 pm

Well first realize that the UN is not a foreign government or authority. We are the UN, and none more so than Americans who have by far the greatest influence within the UN. It is basically just a big club of nations where we can hopefully solve our problems without having to kill each other.

The bureaucracy of the UN was developed to facilitate this club. Out of that many programs were developed for the common good of its members (UNICEF, IEAE, WHO, etc, etc) which have added to the bureaucracy and given it a semblance of an independent organization. Still at its roots it’s just a big club.

Peacekeeping is a relatively new role for the UN, one you can blame Canadians for. Those peacekeepers come from member nations, the UN is not a military force nor should it be.

Those that call the UN toothless and yet call for the UN to do more in Iraq
, against terrorism, etc, etc that is not the role of the UN. That is the role of member nations, the UN just facilitates member nations in debating, organizing and acting in unison on these issues when those member nations choose to do so.

Blaming the UN for anything outside its own bureaucracy (like the oil for food scandal) is retarded.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 22, 2004, 5:34 pm

Kelshara wrote:- Remove veto rights.
- Establish some sort of written guidelines for punishment if a country does not follow UN decissions.
- Better internal review and control system to limit/reduce corruption.
- Standing military force to send in as peace keepers when needed on a very short notice. Must train together to be effective.
- Countries must follow UN decissions not only when they agree with it but also when they disagree.
- Role of UN: Peacekeepers, organize aid programs, work on balancing the world more economically, work on limiting pollution, be a global organization for research and technological advancements.

Point by point:

I don't think that removing veto rights is feasible. Without veto rights, the United States would likely refuse to participate or greatly reduce it's role in the United Nations. Other countries that are currently pushing the United Nations as a venue for problem-solving (like France and Russia) do so largely because they possess security council membership and veto power. France is only moderately powerful in military and economic terms, but is hugely powerful politically, a nod to it's legacy and it's role in the United Nations. Possession of veto power puts these countries on an even footing with the United States within the context of the United Nations. This is power that they do not possess in any other context. Removing veto power entirely would simply strengthen the United States, as suddenly France would lose one of the few checks on our power that it controls, and the United States would likely free itself entirely from the bounds of the United Nations.

To address your second, fifth, and sixth points together: I am not convinced that the United Nations could be a viable political entity if it demanded obedience of it's members but was vested with a mandate as limited as that which you describe. Issues of peacekeeping, the environment, economic and political equality, and scientific and technical progress are not the key life-and-death issues upon which governments place absolute priority. What if, for instance, China were to receive an order from the UN which obligated it to take actions to defend their environment which, in the opinion of China's government, reduced their national security? Should we force China to override their own national security because of our policy preferences? Perhaps more importantly, would China be willing to override their national security for our policy preferences? The answer is most likely not. There is no worldwide ideological consensus on the issues you raise. If we were to institute forced obedience in the manner described, the only logical action for all nations outside of Western Europe's ideological alliance would be to depart the United Nations. Such a step would raise red flags in countries from China and the United States to Uganda and Colombia.

I always support better internal review to combat corruption. The UN is no exception.

I also support your idea of a consolidated military force. I'm not sure if the UN is the correct body under which to create such an organization (I personally think that the United States should do it ourselves), but it is definitely an idea that is long overdue. Provided that sufficient checks and balances were provided to prevent the abuse of the force, I think that possession of military might would be a significant step toward providing the UN with a much expanded ability to enforce its decisions.

A large part of the concern which surrounds the current state of the UN exists because of international angst regarding the amount of control which the United States exercises over the United Nations specifically and world affairs more generally. Many of the pitches for reform suggest a system in which the United Nations changes from an organization which generally works at the ideological behest of the United States to an organization which generally works at the ideological behest of the European Union. I understand that the EU is interested in positioning itself as a counterweight to the USA. I also understand that the UN is in need of reform, and probably is far too US-dominated. But a true reform proposal would aim to fix the inequities in the system, instead of simply shifting the benefits of those inequities from America to Europe.

Potential suggestions:
1. Reduce veto power. Allow permanent security council nations to possess veto power, but allow this veto to be overriden by an appropriate vote of the security council, like a presidential veto in the United States.
2. Expand the security council in some fashion. Currently there is far too little geographic and ideological diversity. Western Europe is proportionally overrepresented with two seats. The United States and Russia are generally ideologically similar to the Western European nations. China is the only country that is significantly different. There are some countries, like Germany or Japan, that can make strong arguments for inclusion based on their similarities to other security council nations. There are other countries, like Brazil, Turkey, or almost any African nation, that can argue for inclusion based on the extent to which the security council currently ignores the geographic and ideological concerns that they represent. This, of course, raises the question: "by what criteria are nations included in the security council?" The issue of security council expansion is quite complex and controversial, but by answering this question we can begin to sort out what the structure of the organization should be.
3. Determine specifically the aim of the organization. Is the United Nations a forum for global governance? Or is it a very large membership-based IGO which operates with a general mandate to support peace, democracy, equality, and liberty? These two goals should yield vastly different organizations, but as of now, the United Nations could plausibly be argued to be either.