Is it time to rearrange the UN security council?

[JTsyo]

It made sense in the aftermath of WW2 but the world has changed. Russia, Britain and France are no longer the powers they used to be. Maybe in 2 or 3 decades, America will fade too. Should the seats be opened to rotation? Why should the has beens have the veto power for the rest of the world?

 

[Jimmah]

Rearrange once per decade sounds right, and one country shouldn't have absolute veto power, it should be a majority vote who decides the veto.

Or, just remove the ability to veto completely, 'certain' countries like to abuse it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Just get rid of the UN completely

As a aid organization, it is riddled with corruption.
As a military body, it has no teeth
As a political pulpit, it is a game of one upsmanship

 

[Fern]

Just get rid of the UN completely

As a aid organization, it is riddled with corruption.
As a military body, it has no teeth
As a political pulpit, it is a game of one upsmanship

Yep.

I think it needs to be abolished. Take any useful core function(s) and start over with a new organization(s). Choose the new members wisely in accordance with the stated function. E.g., no more joke regimes in a Human Rights Council. IMO, the UN model has not proven optimum and is very ineffecient in addition to being corrupt.

Fern

 

[Atreus21]

I think it is necessary, and that its goal is a good one.

Perhaps it could be completely restructured.

 

[yllus]

I've come to think of the Security Council as a very realistic organization. It's actually completely sensible to give each sitting member veto power - for all the good that the United States and other Western allies might accomplish by leveraging the UN to do, think about all of the things Russia or China or other nations would be able to push the UN into action upon (eg. the Middle Eastern bloc plus nations dependent on their oil authorize military action against Israel). Better that nobody has that power than everybody.

 

[Atreus21]

I've come to think of the Security Council as a very realistic organization. It's actually completely sensible to give each sitting member veto power - for all the good that the United States and other Western allies might accomplish by leveraging the UN to do, think about all of the things Russia or China or other nations would be able to push the UN into action upon (eg. the Middle Eastern bloc plus nations dependent on their oil authorize military action against Israel). Better that nobody has that power than everybody.

This man has a clue.

 

[lupi]

Worthless and does more harm than good.

 

[Fern]

I've come to think of the Security Council as a very realistic organization. It's actually completely sensible to give each sitting member veto power - for all the good that the United States and other Western allies might accomplish by leveraging the UN to do, think about all of the things Russia or China or other nations would be able to push the UN into action upon (eg. the Middle Eastern bloc plus nations dependent on their oil authorize military action against Israel). Better that nobody has that power than everybody.

A good argument for a new UN-type org with specifically chosen members who have common interests and shared values.

Fern

 

[EagleKeeper]

I've come to think of the Security Council as a very realistic organization. It's actually completely sensible to give each sitting member veto power - for all the good that the United States and other Western allies might accomplish by leveraging the UN to do, think about all of the things Russia or China or other nations would be able to push the UN into action upon (eg. the Middle Eastern bloc plus nations dependent on their oil authorize military action against Israel). Better that nobody has that power than everybody.

Where did those multitude of resolutions against Israel come from?

The Arab bloc with the blessing of the Soviets

 

[RabidMongoose]

At the very least, the UK and France should be removed and replaced with a general EU seat. Individually, these countries are becoming less relevant on the global stage. They should probably be replaced by Brazil and India as those countries will soon be more important than France or the UK alone.

 

[Fern]

Unlike many here, I don't see France and the UK as being irrelevent. They both have a lot of influence with various countries, among other things. They also have a boatload of experience in international affairs and conducting foreign policy, they are often formidable.

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

The UN is necessary for world peace, it may not be perfect, but without such a body, thermonuclear war becomes far more probable.

Our wiser forefathers learned the lessons from the failures of the league of Nations.

IN terms of the lack of teeth of the UN, it boils down to the past failure of the league of Nations.

 

[glenn1]

The UN is necessary for world peace, it may not be perfect, but without such a body, thermonuclear war becomes far more probable.

This is quite possibly the very stupidest thing you've ever said on this forum, and that's a mighty high bar.

 

[Doppel]

There should be no veto as it breeds inaction and forces catering to asshole countries like China and Russia.

 

[Infohawk]

The UN needs to be replaced by a League of Democracies. China and Russia would get to suck it.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep.

I think it needs to be abolished. Take any useful core function(s) and start over with a new organization(s). Choose the new members wisely in accordance with the stated function. E.g., no more joke regimes in a Human Rights Council. IMO, the UN model has not proven optimum and is very ineffecient in addition to being corrupt.

Fern

The UN is fine, and any new organization you might make would have the same problems. Fundamentally it comes down to the requirement for powerful states to enforce the UN's decisions, and powerful states aren't going to sacrifice their interests for it.

The UN costs little, and for what it costs we have a decent forum for states to interact. Leave it alone. I'll never understand the right wing hate for it.

 

[yllus]

Where did those multitude of resolutions against Israel come from?

The Arab bloc with the blessing of the Soviets

Sure, resolutions that condemn Israel but don't leverage UN assets to actually do anything significant to them. That'd change if per-member veto was taken away.

Roughly 50% of the world's nations are not open democracies. The other 50% almost without exception get along very well. There'd be no point in establishing a democracy-only organization - the entire point is to engage the rest of the world.

 

[QuantumPion]

The UN is fine, and any new organization you might make would have the same problems. Fundamentally it comes down to the requirement for powerful states to enforce the UN's decisions, and powerful states aren't going to sacrifice their interests for it.

The UN costs little, and for what it costs we have a decent forum for states to interact. Leave it alone. I'll never understand the right wing hate for it.

One of my coworkers recently went to Haiti as part of a relief mission. He described to me that he personally witnessed how the UN presence there was worse than useless. They spent millions of dollars on their compounds and for a big UN monument while tens of thousands around them starve in the streets. Furthermore, they were directly responsbile for a cholera outbreak because they were dumping their sewage right into the river where people get their drinking water from. Awesome.

 

[fskimospy]

One of my coworkers recently went to Haiti as part of a relief mission. He described to me that he personally witnessed how the UN presence there was worse than useless. They spent millions of dollars on their compounds and for a big UN monument while tens of thousands around them starve in the streets. Furthermore, they were directly responsbile for a cholera outbreak because they were dumping their sewage right into the river where people get their drinking water from. Awesome.

Wow, everything the UN does isn't great. I have worked with the UN during my time in the military and my current roommate works as part of the UK's mission to the UN to help clear land mines.

Anecdotal evidence is silly, but it helps people believe what they already want to believe.

 

[QuantumPion]

Sure, resolutions that condemn Israel but don't leverage UN assets to actually do anything significant to them. That'd change if per-member veto was taken away.

Roughly 50% of the world's nations are not open democracies. The other 50% almost without exception get along very well. There'd be no point in establishing a democracy-only organization - the entire point is to engage the rest of the world.

That is laughable. The UN does not engage the rest of the world. the UN gives legitimacy to corrupt third world dictators and allows them to stay in power.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

One of my coworkers recently went to Haiti as part of a relief mission.

Who was your friend with?

 

[QuantumPion]

Wow, everything the UN does isn't great. I have worked with the UN during my time in the military and my current roommate works as part of the UK's mission to the UN to help clear land mines.

Anecdotal evidence is silly, but it helps people believe what they already want to believe.

At what point does corrupt act after corrupt act stop being anecdotal and become endemic? The UN is also known for giving aid and cover to Hamas during the last Israeli/Lebanese war, allowing them to fire rockets on Israeli civlians from their compounds. The UN has literally been indicted for raping babies in Africa. And let's not forget Oil for Food of course.

 

[QuantumPion]

Who was your friend with?

His church, I don't remember which one it was.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

His church, I don't remember which one it was.

Just curious. Churches do most of the relief work. I went with a group to Jamaica some years back since I have some modest skills with general carpentry. Nice people and the the locals were great.