I've been seeing a lot of debates on the UN on forums all over the net lately, and am concerned at the anger that is being directed against it by some sections of the world community.
There are complaints that it is a useless body that doesn't enforce anything it passes, costs nations (especially the US) a fortune, won't help in trouble spots like Sudan ect.
I agree there are problems with the UN, but think most of the anger directed toward it is either misdirected or misinformed.
The UN was never set up to activly wade in and solve the worlds problems. It was set up as a think tank and a discussion forum where nations could come together and literally talk. It has no army and depends on the generosity of member nations to provide peacekeeping troops when needed. If nations won't provide them, will only provide them on conditions or won't provide enough, how can the UN be blamed?
The biggest problem is the security coucil. Veto power needs to go, no question about it. The fact 5 or 6 nations control what passes and doesn't, when this council is, in my opinion, the most important in the UN is totally wrong. Let them keep the permanent seats, no problem, but take that veto power away and make the votes on resolutions truly majority rules. I also would like to see China and India with permanent seats on the SC. They are the two biggest emerging economies, two largest nations and both militarily powerful.
I'd like to see the UN with more equality between member nations instead of a few dominating, and with the ability to pass resolutions that are binding and enforcable on rogue member nations. This is, I believe, a very important world body and needs to be brought up to date, and given the power to mean what it says.
The UN
Moderator: Crew
The UN
[size=75][color=darkblue]Catch a falling star and put it in your pocket
Never let it fade away
Catch a falling star and put it in your pocket
Save it for a rainy day[/color][/size]
Never let it fade away
Catch a falling star and put it in your pocket
Save it for a rainy day[/color][/size]
In my opinion the UN needs to be reformed to be more competent and efficient. It was brought up to life after Second WW. After that world polarized. Main goal for the UN was to stop the global conflict between east and west. Now with the old style of keeping the peace in the world there is more sense in giving more power to local (continental) structures, which have better view on any conflict and are better prepared to resolve the problems in some areas...
Shouldn't make a post with so little time on my hands, but I'll state one thing that's rarely ever said:
The United Nations has a misleading name; it should be called the United Governments, since it is made up of regimes, not ethnic groups. That's a small detail, but it's ridiculous for the UN to go about self-righteously labelling itself as a higher order when it receives substantial funding from repressive regimes.
Got to go babysitting now =D
The United Nations has a misleading name; it should be called the United Governments, since it is made up of regimes, not ethnic groups. That's a small detail, but it's ridiculous for the UN to go about self-righteously labelling itself as a higher order when it receives substantial funding from repressive regimes.
Got to go babysitting now =D
Well, the name question aside, I think you are on the right track welp. I've not considered the UN becoming more region oriented, but that does make good sense. Not sure if this is what you mean, but it got me thinking about the regional question a bit.
Equal membership on all panels, including the Security Council, from representatives in all the worlds regions would make decisions more equal and fair. The permanent SC at the moment is all Europe and the US. That leaves out a fair chunk of the worlds population from having direct permanent representation on it.
I think when the Solomons was having its problems and requested UN peacekeepers, they asked for Australian troops because we are in their region and they trust us. East Timor is another place in our region where our troops went in under the UN banner and did a damm good job. It makes sense for nations in a region to support each other.
Equal membership on all panels, including the Security Council, from representatives in all the worlds regions would make decisions more equal and fair. The permanent SC at the moment is all Europe and the US. That leaves out a fair chunk of the worlds population from having direct permanent representation on it.
I think when the Solomons was having its problems and requested UN peacekeepers, they asked for Australian troops because we are in their region and they trust us. East Timor is another place in our region where our troops went in under the UN banner and did a damm good job. It makes sense for nations in a region to support each other.
[size=75][color=darkblue]Catch a falling star and put it in your pocket
Never let it fade away
Catch a falling star and put it in your pocket
Save it for a rainy day[/color][/size]
Never let it fade away
Catch a falling star and put it in your pocket
Save it for a rainy day[/color][/size]