PDA

View Full Version : Goodbye to United Nations!



is4fun
03-09-2008, 21:21
This is Chapter 5 of the "Charter of the United Nations" involving the security council.

Article 23 states:

1. The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Amended), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution.

2. The non-permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected for a term of two years. In the first election of the non-permanent members after the increase of the membership of the Security Council from eleven to fifteen, two of the four additional members shall be chosen for a term of one year. A retiring member shall not be eligible for immediate re-election.

3. Each member of the Security Council shall have one representative.



Given the United Nations mandate as stated in it's Preamble:



We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, And for these Ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
Have Resolved to Combine our Efforts to Accomplish these Aims Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

A copy of the whole charter can be accessed here: Charter of the United Nations (http://www.hrweb.org/legal/unchartr.html)


Should there remain permanent members in the Security council? Should there be a more democratic system? Should the UN be disbanded and another more democratic system be initiated, perhaps a NATO type of system for instance. Is there any hope for the United Nation Assembly in the future to live up to it's preamble? Your thoughts, your insights, your views, whatever... They are always welcome.

DDT
03-09-2008, 21:48
It really doesn't matter.
The USA, UK and Israel, along with any other nations that still have their principles in tact, should all pull out of the UN immediately. The USA and Israel, who pay the largest amount of money to the UN, should pull out of it and form a new alliance of democracies. The UN has become a pack of flesh eating zombies, dominated by tyrants and mediocrities. Koffee Kup Annan, who should have been fired ages ago, should go smother himself in a vat of peeled bananas.

is4fun
03-09-2008, 21:57
It really doesn't matter.
The USA, UK and Israel, along with any other nations that still have their principles in tact, should all pull out of the UN immediately. The USA and Israel, who pay the largest amount of money to the UN, should pull out of it and form a new alliance of democracies. The UN has become a pack of flesh eating zombies, dominated by tyrants and mediocrities. Koffee Kup Annan, who should have been fired ages ago, should go smother himself in a vat of peeled bananas.

Your sentiments may be a trite on the strong side. LOL

Why a pack of flesh eating zombies? Explain in English please...

Olenka19
03-09-2008, 22:03
I think that United Nations is out of order now and lost all its power (if had). This organisation must maintain peace and prevent wars and all like that. But wars in Iraque, Afhanistan, Vietnam, in Former Yugoslavia and all over the world prove the contrary. So why and for what purpose do they exist? Last time I saw their meeting it was ridiculous. The representatives of the countries were arguing like old bags in the market. It was useless and socking to me. In South Ossetia people were being killed and they were discussing who phoned and who didn't phone to prevent the war. :redcard:

is4fun
03-09-2008, 22:06
A limp biscuit indeed as I gather from your thoughts and many others. Any solutions, however? :)

Transparent Theatre
03-09-2008, 22:06
Why a pack of flesh eating zombies? Explain in English please...

Don't ask unfair questions like this - it's DDT you're addressing.

He only replies with cut/paste drivel from the National Rifle Association - he's not allowed to edit it.

Olenka19
03-09-2008, 22:18
A limp biscuit indeed as I gather from your thoughts and many others. Any solutions, however? :)

Solutions? It is very easy to say: Let's give up this organisation and set up a new one. But what will be the differences between them? The same slogans, the same concepts... I think the problems are in people , in politicians. May be it's better to make Nations less politics-oriented. I don't know the ways. My opinion is the opinion of ordinary person.

is4fun
03-09-2008, 22:20
Don't ask unfair questions like this - it's DDT you're addressing.

He only replies with cut/paste drivel from the National Rifle Association - he's not allowed to edit it.

Everyone has a right to his/her beliefs. DDT may be out there as a conservative, however, far from deviant. I do not agree with everything he dreams up of, however, I have always felt freedom of speach is an important ingredient of a truely democratic society. As is yours TT. :)

is4fun
03-09-2008, 22:22
Solutions? It is very easy to say: Let's give up this organisation and set up a new one. But what will be the differences between them? The same slogans, the same concepts... I think the problems are in people , in politicians. May be it's better to make Nations less politics-oriented. I don't know the ways. My opinion is the opinion of ordinary person.

Does not at least the preamble hold true?

DDT
03-09-2008, 22:33
Your sentiments may be a trite on the strong side. LOL

Why a pack of flesh eating zombies? Explain in English please...

A bit in the strong side? That's why I am named DDT, for heavens sake!

Anyway, call it "poetic license".

is4fun
03-09-2008, 22:48
A bit in the strong side? That's why I am named DDT, for heavens sake!

Anyway, call it "poetic license".

Arrogance was my initial thought.

Adamodeus
03-09-2008, 23:11
Although your criticism of the United Nations is justified, you should not forget the UN does not only consist of the Security Council and questions of war and peace are only a tiny percentage of all the questions that the UN takes care of. I can assure you it's true because I personally know many people who work or have worked for the UN. There are dozens of countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America that would end up in a very difficult situation if the UN were abolished. There are hundreds of aid, food, medicine and economic programs that the UN implements every year. Yes, it is a rather anachronistic paper monster, but it solves real problems and helps save quite literally millions of lives.

A League of Democracies will be exclusive by definition, and thus, push its own agenda of fighting Russia and China, but who's going to take care of Bangladesh and Eritrea that don't have oil?

is4fun
03-09-2008, 23:23
Although your criticism of the United Nations is justified, you should not forget the UN does not only consist of the Security Council and questions of war and peace are only a tiny percentage of all the questions that the UN takes care of. I can assure you it's true because I personally know many people who work or have worked for the UN. There are dozens of countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America that would end up in a very difficult situation if the UN were abolished. There are hundreds of aid, food, medicine and economic programs that the UN implements every year. Yes, it is a rather anachronistic paper monster, but it solves real problems and helps save quite literally millions of lives.

A League of Democracies will be exclusive by definition, and thus, push its own agenda of fighting Russia and China, but who's going to take care of Bangladesh and Eritrea that don't have oil?


You did not read through the whole post.

I agree with you totally, however, is it time for a revise?

is4fun
04-09-2008, 00:42
Should there be any permanent members on the security council?

BelgianSoviet
04-09-2008, 01:28
UN security council is just as useful as the League of Nations was in the parabellum (means very little)

UNicef & the likes maybe more useful.

Adamodeus
04-09-2008, 13:33
Should there be any permanent members on the security council?
The Security Council makes sense. There have always and will always be countries that are much more powerful. Their opinion will always matter more. I think there should be more permanent members. In the end, it's a place where the most powerful nations will always be in constant contact and negotiations. It's a much lengthier and much more tedious process, but there is a better chance for a compromise, even if it will not always be reached.

With a League of Democracies, they will announce it as a "league of equals", you know, in the best of democratic traditions, they will generally agree with each other and most of the time pat each other on the back and, yes, sure, some problems will be solved much quicker than they are in the UN, but that will necessarily be a pretense. It's the nature of the beast. The US totally disregarded the opinion of its closest democratic NATO allies France and Germany on Iraq and should a similar disagreement occur, I see nothing that would ever stop the US, even within the framework of a new League. And fankly, nothing will convince me that the opinion of Luxembourg actually should have the same weight as the opinion of the US. It's utterly unrealistic to expect anything else.

We must also keep in mind, that such a League will surely provoke a countermeasure, say, the creation of a "League of Independent Countries". Then you'll have two competing blocks in the world and even more chance for confrontation than there is now. At least in the UN we have some sort of framework for constant dialogue, which should always be the best long-term solution.

is4fun
04-09-2008, 23:20
Who would be the other members of the permanent security council?

Adamodeus
05-09-2008, 09:39
Who would be the other members of the permanent security council?
India should definitely be there (and incidentally, it's the largest democracy in the world). Probably Japan too, although China might have to say something about those two. I would say Germany. Brazil. And funny enough, both the US and Russia will probably be quite OK with all of the countries I've just mentioned, which I would say is a rather hopeful sign.

is4fun
05-09-2008, 20:40
India should definitely be there (and incidentally, it's the largest democracy in the world). Probably Japan too, although China might have to say something about those two. I would say Germany. Brazil. And funny enough, both the US and Russia will probably be quite OK with all of the countries I've just mentioned, which I would say is a rather hopeful sign.

I would tend to agree except for the last comment about acceptance. I do not think Russia would be ok with the suggestions.

Adamodeus
07-09-2008, 19:09
I would tend to agree except for the last comment about acceptance. I do not think Russia would be ok with the suggestions.
I don't see any major obstacles here for Russia. India has great relations with Russia, Brazil is just non-aligned, Germany is probably the friendliest towards Russia of all the Western European nations. Japan might be be an issue because of the Northern Territories, I would agree with that, but I doubt the Russians will base their decision solely on that. As I always maintain, Russia's foreign policy is a policy of pure pragmatism and you can always make a deal with someone whose view is not clouded by the primacy of some ideology.

Gypsy
07-09-2008, 19:11
It really doesn't matter.
The USA, UK and Israel, along with any other nations that still have their principles in tact, should all pull out of the UN immediately. The USA and Israel, who pay the largest amount of money to the UN, should pull out of it and form a new alliance of democracies. The UN has become a pack of flesh eating zombies, dominated by tyrants and mediocrities. Koffee Kup Annan, who should have been fired ages ago, should go smother himself in a vat of peeled bananas.
Israel a democracy???????????

hilarious!!!

Adamodeus
07-09-2008, 19:25
Just some extra info: on the 4 December 2004, during his official state visit to India, President Putin said that all new permanent members of the Security Council must have veto powers. He came out in support of India's proposed membership.

RRM
07-09-2008, 19:32
I actually think that the UN is spread too thin in its tasks. Politically, the world is too complex for even the UN to make a sound decision.
What should be the criteria of including countries with Veto power in the UN ? This is a complex question in itself.

is4fun
08-09-2008, 01:44
I don't see any major obstacles here for Russia. India has great relations with Russia, Brazil is just non-aligned, Germany is probably the friendliest towards Russia of all the Western European nations. Japan might be be an issue because of the Northern Territories, I would agree with that, but I doubt the Russians will base their decision solely on that. As I always maintain, Russia's foreign policy is a policy of pure pragmatism and you can always make a deal with someone whose view is not clouded by the primacy of some ideology.

I still do not agree as the countries you have mentioned have a recently established economic relationship with Russia, however, share no idealistic simularities, whatsoever.

Adamodeus
08-09-2008, 16:14
I still do not agree as the countries you have mentioned have a recently established economic relationship with Russia, however, share no idealistic simularities, whatsoever.
Well, unlike the US (spread of democracy) and China (still, officially, spread of communism), Russia no longer has a state-sponsored ideology, apart from pragmatic self-interest. That means they don't need to have a similar ideology as long as they can extract some sort of benefit out of the situation. Russia simply wants to incorporate more non-aligned decision-makers into the Security Council. Let's look at the list from a pragmatic (Russian) point of view:

Russia knows it can't get everything it wants so it'll try to get the best of what it can get.

India - not known to be a "western puppet", big enough to have its own wide-reaching interests in Asia, has had all kinds of ties with Russia cultural and economic for decades, is more likely to vote differently from the US on some issues, has no common border with Russia. (Like I said, China might have something to say about that though, after all, they've had some military encounters and they are both regional powerhouses.)

Germany - although Germany is likely to support the US 99 times out of 100, because of the far-reaching economic cooperation with Russia (and a sort of grudging mutual respect that has developed between the two countries in the last decade), Russia hopes that Germany would vote with Russia on many "non-polarising" issues.

Japan - most likely to raise Russia's objections because of its territorial claims, Japan is in dire need of all natural resources. Should Japan sign a comprehensive oil & gas deal with Russia, it might buy Russian support that way. Germany and Japan would be a step towards the US as Russia knows they are basically US allies, but Russia also knows it can't get Kazakhstan in there instead of Japan, so those two would be the "lesser evil", compared to, let's say, Canada or Australia.

Brazil - has no competing interests with Russia in any sphere, has some economic ties to Russia, but is simply too far geographically to be either an ally or an antagonist. Brazil is the regional powerhouse in South America and therefore, both countries could benefit from each other's support in the Security Council as Russia would get a foothold through Brazil and Brazil would get Russian support on many "developing country issues" in return.

Am I forgetting anyone?

Adamodeus
08-09-2008, 16:29
You can say whatever you want about Putin, but one thing he is not, is stupid. In an ideal world, he would love to install Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan and Abkhazia into the UN Security Council, but since George W. Bush divorcing his wife and marrying a three-headed hydra is an astronomically likelier scenario than the former, Putin will go for what is "best of the worst" in his view.

Why, which countries do you think Russia would support?

is4fun
10-09-2008, 19:06
Exacly why the UN is neccessary... LOL

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran raps Israel 'kidnap threat' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7607764.stm)

BBC World News September 10 2008



Iran raps Israel 'kidnap threat'

Mr Eitan suggested Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be brought to trial

Iran has protested to the UN after an Israeli minister suggested his country could kidnap Iran's president over threats he has made against Israel.

Iran's UN ambassador called the remark "outrageous and vicious" and called on the UN Security Council to take action.

Israeli minister Rafi Eitan suggested President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be kidnapped and brought to trial.

Mr Eitan, an ex-intelligence chief, was involved in the kidnap of leading Nazi Adolf Eichmann in Argentina in 1960.

In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, Mr Eitan suggested that such an operation could be staged to bring Mr Ahmadinejad before the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

The Iranian leader has made a number of threats against Israel, repeatedly predicting the state will soon disappear.

Mr Ahmadinejad also drew international rebuke by quoting the view of the late Iranian spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khomenei, that Israel was a tumour that needed to be erased from history.

Orion
10-09-2008, 19:27
...not as I did

Reverend
11-09-2008, 11:12
It really doesn't matter.
The UN has become a pack of flesh eating zombies, dominated by tyrants and mediocrities.

This could be quite useful! If only we could get agreement we could send the flesh-eaters into combat! No more weapons (esp weapons of mass destruction.) We could require that wars can only be fought by hand and flesh eating. This would reduce the fatalities dramatically!

After a few fatal bites each soldier would grow tired. I love this idea!