How is it logical to have a United Nations country that does not recognize other United Members as real countries

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: dahunan
How is it logical to have a United Nations country that does not recognize other United Members as real countries

There are countries that belong to the UN who don't even recognize Israel as a country..

Why are they even allowed to have a seat at the UN if this is true?

The UN is a medium on which this sort of problem could potentially be resolved. Such a status among its members merely signifies that the UN has thus far been a failure at normalizing relations.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: piasabird
That manifesto would make everyone a citizen of the world, and nagate all the rights of every country to protect its citizens or its borders.

If we're all "citizens of the world", why would each country need to protect its citizens or borders? After all, Iowa doesn't need to defend itself from Minnesota...

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of issues that would need to be resolved...but fundamentally, what's wrong with the idea of a United States writ large covering the entire planet?

The bible thumpers dont want to move towards world government because they think its a sign of the end times.

The bible thumpers? There's a rather large amount of people who would object to yet another layer of government we're bound to abide by and answer to. Especially one of such a massive scale.

The more removed a government is from the people it represents, the less it cares to listen to them as individuals. I bet you it's a lot easier to get a hold of your local city councillor than it is your mayor, or your senator, or your president. Do you really think it's a great idea to have a world senate type body where one senator represents tens of millions of constituents? That's not ripe for abuse or anything...

You're listing issues that would need to be resolved and discussed before it would work, not fundamental issues with the idea. Of course having "distant" government is a bad idea, but the solution to that (as our framers realized) was to give a lot of power to more local governments.

I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, or even an idea we should jump right on, I'm just saying it's workable...and it would have the advantage of having a government at the top that does not have to compete with any other government.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Well in theory, the UN provides a common table to come to and talk to try and solve these issues, in real life that doesnt happen.

That's very true, which is too bad, the UN is a fundamentally good idea. But in practice it doesn't work too well because they have little power to enforce their will, so as soon as a country doesn't like the way the UN is going (including the US) they simply go off and do whatever the hell they want anyways. Obviously not a great way to bring nations to the diplomatic table, they would be better off on their own, at least there the "resolutions" would be binding. Some people want to blame just the US for the state of the UN, but it's clearly not just us, very few countries truly seem to respect the purpose of the UN...and it shows.

And yes, the UN does have some other fundamental issues (like their truly pathetic choices to sit on human rights groups), but it's not going to become a truly useful body until most countries really buy into it ALL the time, not just when it suits them to do so.

While I agree with most of what you say, I do feel that US being the biggest country as well as contributor, should be the one to set an example of international cooperation - which is the basic tenet of the UN.

I don't think the UN was ever intended to be an arbitrator or enforcer of resolutions. It was intended to be a discussion forum where countries could meet and try and work out their differences with input from others - more like a peer review if you will. The basic premise at the UN's inception that some countries are more equal than others was a bad start. They should have worked out a more representative formula based on contributions / population / continents etc. But then, lets face it, the UN was a creation of western nations wanting to exercise some kind of control on other nations without the stigma of colonization; despite it's lofty charter of maintaining international peace and promoting economic and social development.

The one UN body that has been most successful is the IMO. That is a great example of what international cooperation can be and has produces true international laws and regulations which are actually followed by most nations - even though it has led to nearly a complete decline of western shipping.

All said and done it has its uses.

Sorry, but you got many things wrong about the UN. Actually it has always been amazing for me to see how everybody has an opinion and idea on the UN while very few cared enough to know at least the basic things about it.

First: when you talk about the UN you are actually talking about the UN security council. That's a common error, almost everybody does. The basic premise at the UN's inception that some countries are more equal than others as you say, was in fact the reason why the United Nations security council was so succesful. The UN were NOT created to have universal peace on earth. Read the charter. They were created to avoid war between major powers. And in that they worked marvel. If you had not a world war in the last 60 years is largely because of the UN security council. You could argue the composition of the permanent members should be revised, and I agree, but you are not seeing this any time soon. If voting power was given based on ppulation the US would suddently have a minor role.

Second: the economic and social development agencies linked to the UN achieved in the last 50 years is remarkeble. Your criticism about imperialistic tendencies covered by goodwill fits much more the IMF and World Bank, especially the IMF.

Third: since the beginning the UN were supposed to mantain a standing army responding only to the security council. Somebody always prevented this from happening... guess who?

I disagree with you. Below is the 1st chapter from the UN charter. Nowhere does it say avoid war between major powers. Read article 2 line 1 - talks of equality of ALL members. However it was set up with the 5 permanent members of the security council having more power than others. What gave China the right to be one of them? It was no superpower. Also UK & France, why were they included? UK was a shadow of its former self after WW2 and France was in no great shakes either. If any, the 2 then superpowers could have bullied their way as permanent members but no one else should have been allowed. In any case they violated the UN charter from day 1.

And I suggested voting power based on a combination of population and contribution and geography so that all continents are represented. US would have had the most say - being the largest contibutor and having a decent sized population.

I agree that the security council has been instrumental in avoiding large scale conflict since WW2, but they had many weak moments too.

I have not found where in the UN charter it is required to maintain a standing army. See article 43 below, the members have to provide armed forces as needed.



http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Article 1
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 co-operation 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 centre 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 Vll.

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.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: piasabird
That manifesto would make everyone a citizen of the world, and nagate all the rights of every country to protect its citizens or its borders.

If we're all "citizens of the world", why would each country need to protect its citizens or borders? After all, Iowa doesn't need to defend itself from Minnesota...

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of issues that would need to be resolved...but fundamentally, what's wrong with the idea of a United States writ large covering the entire planet?

The bible thumpers dont want to move towards world government because they think its a sign of the end times.

The bible thumpers? There's a rather large amount of people who would object to yet another layer of government we're bound to abide by and answer to. Especially one of such a massive scale.

The more removed a government is from the people it represents, the less it cares to listen to them as individuals. I bet you it's a lot easier to get a hold of your local city councillor than it is your mayor, or your senator, or your president. Do you really think it's a great idea to have a world senate type body where one senator represents tens of millions of constituents? That's not ripe for abuse or anything...

You're listing issues that would need to be resolved and discussed before it would work, not fundamental issues with the idea. Of course having "distant" government is a bad idea, but the solution to that (as our framers realized) was to give a lot of power to more local governments.

I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, or even an idea we should jump right on, I'm just saying it's workable...and it would have the advantage of having a government at the top that does not have to compete with any other government.

How is it workable without being an ineffectual farce or totalitarian nightmare? Regionalism exists for good reasons: Differing social, cultural and economic interests. Even if we all end up subscribing to the same cultural values, the opposing economic angles would quickly tear any such body apart. The American Civil War didn't have its basis of conflict founded on slavery; it was the opposing views of the North and South on economic policy and the hegemony of one side over the other in making those decisions that lit the flame.

A world governmental body is something I'd fight tooth and nail against, especially in light of how the EU seems to be shaping up. I'll stick with the much more safe, realistic and fair state-based system any day of the week.