It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reformation of the united nations.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 02:07 AM
link   
www.un.org/reform.com

I'm a stern believer in the United Nations as a productive dialouge of ascultation, and precentor of universal human rights. But, in the last few decades, the United Nations has been unable to provide productive recourse regarding many socio-political matters; this cannot be utterly pinned down on them, but the lack of abet from powerfull member countries with the much needed clout; and it should also be said that, it's current charter does not allow for pre-emptive action and vehement intervention. This is about to change.

Not only is the current seat of member countries about to change, the charter is going to allow for pre-emptive action to prevent future Rawandas -though one is brewing in Sudan and the Middle East- and encourage more countries to participate in the general assembly.

Who supports this change, and who would rather throw the United Nations into the shredder?

Deep

[edit on 17-12-2004 by ZeroDeep]




posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 03:03 AM
link   
The web address you gave is a dud.

I 150% support reform of the UN. The UN in its current state cant perform its job of global peace broker and promoting global prosperity. The sercuity council needs to be axed and a new council put in its place that accurately reflects the world. The new council would not have the power of veto.

Some Americans want to get rid of the UN my advice to them is go join the League of Nations after all the USA was never a member.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Reformation rather than complete abolishment seems more practical to me. I'm not sure what else to say beyond that...



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   
A real and true reform should be advocated before the "shredder," but I do believe it will require a radical approach, one that will almost feel like a "shredder."

The longer that reform does not take place, the further discontent there will be concerning the authority of the UN and of some member nations. The Blue helmets are just not cutting it, and as mentioned, Sudan and Rwanda are prime examples...perhaps even the removal of Saddam and the second Iraq war. The UN must have the backbone and the power to enforce and prevail. As long as the UN continues to walk the path of "no backbone", it will continue to flounder. Hence, why its legitimacy and itself seems to be heading for a "shredding".




seekerof



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Seekerof I agree that the UN needs more backbone to deal with the world events such as in Sudan. However the UN isnt there to suit everybodys agenda such as Gulf war 2 it is a diffcult balancing act.
I dont wont another debate about Gulf war 2.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I'd go with reform. Remove the veto in the security council and admit India, Brazil, Japan and Egypt into it.

Pre-emptive action could be allowed with a majority of UNSC members voting for it (66% or 50%). I think this would allow humanitarian interventions but also act as a brake on wars of aggression.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   
This reform is a good idea, i have one of my own. Mind if i share it with you?

The UN as it stands seems to do more harm than good, more drastic measures must be taken to ensure peace.

So IMO this would be a better idea for the UN...

1. The UN would be based in a neutral country.
2. There would be no security council.
3. There would be no veto, it would be democratic.
4. A military force made up of all member nations, restrictions on amount of support from each nation but technology would be allowed freely and with out restrictions apart from WMD.
5. If one member state attacks another in any form then it would be ejected from the UN. It would be allowed back in after exsactly 1 year of no agressive combat.
6. If a member state is attacked by a "rogue" state then the UN will defend her member countries to the fullest with any military,dimplomatic and economical means.
7. Each member state will have its own laws and is a soverign country , but if they wish to be a part of the organisation then they must adhere to the rules.
8. Human rights and international laws will be put into effect ASAP. Any member state that does not comply will be ejected.
9. The UN will be open to investigation by member states and vice versa.

Thats about all... what you think?



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
1. The UN would be based in a neutral country.


How about Switzerland, it needs to be central...(spelling)


2. There would be no security council.


What about it being formed in times of need, such as a civil war within member country.


3. There would be no veto, it would be democratic.


I agree with you there



4. A military force made up of all member nations, restrictions on amount of support from each nation but technology would be allowed freely and with out restrictions apart from WMD.


Stops individual countries gaining too much power



5. If one member state attacks another in any form then it would be ejected from the UN. It would be allowed back in after exsactly 1 year of no agressive combat.


An effective method of punishment.


6. If a member state is attacked by a "rogue" state then the UN will defend her member countries to the fullest with any military,dimplomatic and economical means.


Nice



7. Each member state will have its own laws and is a soverign country , but if they wish to be a part of the organisation then they must adhere to the rules.


Another good point



8. Human rights and international laws will be put into effect ASAP. Any member state that does not comply will be ejected.


Could be a problem concerning Immigration and Asylum rules, certain countries might want small immigration number but UN law says medium....just a point.


9. The UN will be open to investigation by member states and vice versa.


This will win over right wing America



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
How about Switzerland, it needs to be central...(spelling)

Iwas JUST looking up those places right now lol.
There where 2 others but both looked a bit IFFY on the diplomatic side , IMO


What about it being formed in times of need, such as a civil war within member country.

The nations would work together to solve this...why be restricted to a few countries when you can have them all?


I agree with you there


Yass! A supporter!


Stops individual countries gaining too much power


My thoughts exsactly.


An effective method of punishment.

YUPO


Nice


Take a page from the NATO's books , "screw with my ameigo, i will screw you over!"


Another good point


Yay!


Could be a problem concerning Immigration and Asylum rules, certain countries might want small immigration number but UN law says medium....just a point.

Hmm yes, mabye a small alteration to the laws is needed.


This will win over right wing America


LOL, i thought so.
You can watch us and we will watch you.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
The nations would work together to solve this...why be restricted to a few countries when you can have them all?


Fair enough



Hmm yes, mabye a small alteration to the laws is needed.


Maybe a broad guide line from the UN for issues such as immigration.
This will win over right wing America


Another thing, why not intergrate trade organisations into the UN maybe dare i say it what about intergrating NATO


[edit on 27-12-2004 by UK Wizard]



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 05:20 PM
link   
One thing that came to mind was this, my physics teacher told us about this idea.
As you know in world wide trade its always done by a middle "man" , this actually cheats both the supplier and user. Take a farmer in....some country.... he sells his coffee beans for 60 pence the pound, his stuff gets sold in the UK for 2.00 the pound . We aint tlking cheap coffee here.

The farmer doesnt get the other 1.40 for the coffee. That is taken by the middle man as profit.

The solution? Cut out the middle man and allow our countries to grow again!

So i suggest that trade can be done directly between supplier and buyer.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
Another thing, why not intergrate trade organisations into the UN maybe dare i say it what about intergrating NATO


[edit on 27-12-2004 by UK Wizard]


Hmm well this whole reform idea would replace NATO anyhow.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Hmm well this whole reform idea would replace NATO anyhow.


But what about the EU, i doubt the EU fat cats would see that the greater good is to have a global alliance rather than just a European one...



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
But what about the EU, i doubt the EU fat cats would see that the greater good is to have a global alliance rather than just a European one...

It depends on what we can offer them.....hmm..well the EU fat cats like all the freedom they have in the EU yes?
Well if thats so , we could offer them something equal or more...



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
[i doubt the EU fat cats would see that the greater good is to have a global alliance rather than just a European one...


- Well besides the issue that the European Union is to be criticised here for not attempting to cure all global ills and restricting itself to Europe; I'd love to know who you think these 'EU fat cats' are Wizard?

Cos as far as I can see all the major people in the positions of real power and control in the EU are either the directly elected officals from the memberships' nation state governments or the appointees of those holding democratically elected office from the membership indvidual nation states.

There are no separate 'EU fat cats'; only the people sent to the EU institutions by the national governments (the 'EU Commission' Commissioners), members of those governments themselves (the various 'Councils of Ministers') or those directly and democratically elected by the people of those nation states (the EU Parliament).



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Ah our local EU exspert has arrived, would be nice to hear his view on this idea of mine...



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
(the 'EU Commission' Commissioners)


theres your answer, but lets not get drawn into EU arguements here, this thread is for UN talk



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Devilwasp
Ah our local EU exspert has arrived, would be nice to hear his view on this idea of mine...


- "Expert"!?
I suspect some pi*s taking here DW!
You're too kind.


This reform is a good idea, i have one of my own. Mind if i share it with you?

The UN as it stands seems to do more harm than good, more drastic measures must be taken to ensure peace.


- I know what you are saying DW but I am not entirely convinced that the 'flaws' in the UN are solely to do with the UN itself; certainly the USA's current problems with the UN seem far more to do with US politics.


So IMO this would be a better idea for the UN...

1. The UN would be based in a neutral country.
2. There would be no security council.


- I see no big problems with this.



3. There would be no veto, it would be democratic.


- The US and Israel would never go along with this.


4. A military force made up of all member nations, restrictions on amount of support from each nation but technology would be allowed freely and with out restrictions apart from WMD.


- I can see the US and Europe refusing to go along with this.....I just don't see either agreeing to allow the use of their high tech so freely.


5. If one member state attacks another in any form then it would be ejected from the UN. It would be allowed back in after exsactly 1 year of no agressive combat.
6. If a member state is attacked by a "rogue" state then the UN will defend her member countries to the fullest with any military,dimplomatic and economical means.


- That seems usual and fair.


7. Each member state will have its own laws and is a soverign country , but if they wish to be a part of the organisation then they must adhere to the rules.


-
at this point the anti-collectivists wil be bitching about their 'being run by.....etc' or their 'being taken over by.....' or some imagined loss of 'sovereignty'.


8. Human rights and international laws will be put into effect ASAP. Any member state that does not comply will be ejected.


- Fine, any further penalties to loss of membership?


9. The UN will be open to investigation by member states and vice versa.


- I think it already is 'open'. Whether it is open enough when a particular political vendetta is being persued is another matter.


Thats about all... what you think


- There's a lot of reasonable points in there DW, but some I just can't see being accepted....especially when it comes to trying to break any log-jam regarding Israel and the US veto.


Originally posted by UK Wizard

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
(the 'EU Commission' Commissioners)


theres your answer,


- The Commission isn't a 'fat cat' group Wizard, it's a group of temporary appointees appointed by the national governments.

......and let's not forget recent events (where the directly democratically elected EU Parliament exerted control over the composition of the new Commission) which clearly shows the EU is listening and acting to be seen addressing the so-called 'democratic deficit'.


but lets not get drawn into EU arguements here, this thread is for UN talk


- OK.


[edit on 28-12-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- "Expert"!?
I suspect some pi*s taking here DW!
You're too kind.

Na na seriosly you seem to be a big supporter of it.



- I know what you are saying DW but I am not entirely convinced that the 'flaws' in the UN are solely to do with the UN itself; certainly the USA's current problems with the UN seem far more to do with US politics.

Yeah, i understand where your comeing from.


- The US and Israel would never go along with this.

You sure?
I mean the veto has stopped any move they have tried to make.



- I can see the US and Europe refusing to go along with this.....I just don't see either agreeing to allow the use of their high tech so freely.

What i meant was that countries could sell thier weapons to other countries in the UN with out real restrictions.



- That seems usual and fair.

Yeah the whole we will hurt you if you our friend idea works gd.


-
at this point the anti-collectivists wil be bitching about their 'being run by.....etc' or their 'being taken over by.....' or some imagined loss of 'sovereignty'.

Well the only rules would be international laws and such. So i dont see how its supposed to "take over" thier rights.


- Fine, any further penalties to loss of membership?

I dont know, any suggestions? Opinions?


- I think it already is 'open'. Whether it is open enough when a particular political vendetta is being persued is another matter.

What about the whole oil food thing?
I mean this would open everything to everyone.


- There's a lot of reasonable points in there DW, but some I just can't see being accepted....especially when it comes to trying to break any log-jam regarding Israel and the US veto.

Hmm any suggestions on there?



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Na na seriosly you seem to be a big supporter of it.


- Yeah well I think it is well worth 'supporting'.
It's not perfection or above criticism but it is a hell of an improvement on what went before and most of the criticism I see of it is pretty feeble, self-serving and one-dimensional IMHO.

I'm not for writing off todays democratic EU because of the politics of Europe 70yrs ago, 90yrs ago or 150yrs ago.
Waving Napoleon, the Kaiser or Adolf at me just isn't good enough I'm afraid.

Europe's history before it came about was one genocidal disaster after another......my family lost 4 good men (people I was never to know because of it) and 2 ruined for life (so that I never was allowed to know them) in the last episode, how about yours?


You sure?
I mean the veto has stopped any move they have tried to make.


- I think you'll find the balance has been that - even on the things the other SC members thought reasonable - if Israel was criticised or asked to do something it didn't want to do the USA was, without fail, straight in with the veto.

IIRC the country that has used the veto the most at the UN is the USA in support of Israel (as if the other SC members are/were all anti-Israel!
)


What i meant was that countries could sell thier weapons to other countries in the UN with out real restrictions.


- Ah righto. Although frankly a world with free and easy arms sales - once you move away from the SC members themselves - is one we can do without.

IMHO it just leads to one mess after another; with few exceptions, the only issue beoing one of the timing.



Well the only rules would be international laws and such. So i dont see how its supposed to "take over" thier rights.


- Me neither mate but you know how it can go!



I dont know, any suggestions? Opinions?


- Maybe the requiring of internationally held bonds where the other SC members can freeze or fine really substantive amounts of cash?


What about the whole oil food thing?
I mean this would open everything to everyone.


- Yeah, oil for food is just the latest expression of it.
Most people don't know the full ins and outs of things as they stand now so criticism is to some extent easy.....and once the sound-bites are out and being repeated, with so little time to explore issues these days whos to know better?

I am pretty certain the UN has internationally agreed auditing proceedures already......and many critics aren't really interested in the details of this, just the head-line, as delving into the detail would high-light certain, shall we say 'hypocrisies' in their position?


Hmm any suggestions on there?


- Limit the usage of the veto in each area.
Maybe anyone using the veto on a particular topic 5 times might be expected to table proposals themselves and be barred from using the veto in relation to the outcome of their own proposals?

I'd love to see them try working with that one!


[edit on 28-12-2004 by sminkeypinkey]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join