What the U.N. should be :

[Meistro1]

What The United Nations Should Be

If there is one belief that is almost universally accepted it is that peace on Earth is desirable. While some military hawks may call for increased defense spending and militarization it is my belief that they do so in the desire for peace not war. While I may not agree with their methods I certainly applaud their goals. This should also be the primary function of the united nation; to promote peace. Where peace exists secondary concerns like health care, education and economic development can prosper. Where war exists the only things that flourish are death and chaos.

Any nation in the world should be guaranteed freedom from military intervention by hostile nations and for this to be true the United Nations must have the strongest military presence on the planet. There is no other way to guarantee safety to it's members. These conditions call for a radical reorganization of the way nations can join the U.N. and their function within. Under my plan the following changes would occur :

Any nation who joined would first their entire military forces to the United Nations.
Any nation wishing to join must hold a nation wide referendum on the subject, with a 2/3rds majority voting to join.
Should a nation petition the U.N. for membership (5% of the population petitioning) then referendums will be held even at the expense of military action.
On joining the installation of a genuine democratic republic will be overseen. A nation must be truly democratic to join.
Basic human rights standards will be ensured for all member nations; if the human rights violations exceed a certain level the leadership is recalled and an immediate re-election is held.

This would ensure that any people who truly wish to be free could be safe from the violence and aggression of petty dictators and foreign governments could. While there are dangers inherent in any congregation of power, with proper checks and balances and by limiting the influence of the U.N. in a countries individual affairs this is a viable plan for world peace.

[RedAnarchist]

I dunno if I like the UN - it appears to be a peacekeeping force, but in reality it is just there to justify many of the actions the imperialist nations take, and to make it look like they are genuinely concerned about those suffering from conflict - but often they just stand aside and let horror happen, such as the Rwandan genocide in 1994.

[The Bitter Hippy]

Well it sounds like a nice ideal, but it doesnt remove the exploitation of the proletariat, it doesn't eliminate the class system inherent in our current capitalist world, and it retains the idea of nationhood. Surely peace would be far more achievable, one could say unavoidable, if nations were removed entirely and replaced by voluntary communes of workers? ( I believe this point has been made ad nauseum? )

and what xphile said is correct. The UN is almost entirely powerless and influence free apart from the security council which serves only to give a mandate to the worst of the capitalists for their imperialist wars and subversion of leftist states.

[Tekun]

The UN was created by the imperialistic capitalists and it serves the imperialistic capitalists
Its not a coincidence that its headquarters are located in NY

As xphyle mentioned, they have almost nothing when genocides or massacres occur in non European regions
In addition, they have very little force or authority...as was shown when the US invaded Iraq without UN approval
Some UN... :rolleyes:

[Guerrilla22]

It should be abolished. Its the most pointless orginization ever. The only wing of it that can pass binding resolutions is the security council, which the US, and UK have permanaet seats and veto power on. What the hell is the point of passing no-binding resoluitons?

[MurderInc]

There's a certain humor to this the (as indicated by the comments here) the ultra left often believes that the UN's purpose is for the big countries to rape the poor ones, and the ultra right believe the UN allows the many small countries to ***** and moan about the big ones.

What the UN lacks is authority. No organization without authority will ever be thought of as anything but a social club. Seriously.

Most nations, like the U.S., rest authority for their actions in their own courts or legislatures. Internationalists seek to remove those borders.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 12:38 PM
What the hell is the point of passing no-binding resoluitons?
Ever heard of Opinio Juris?

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinio_juris)

Even if a state has not expressedly consented to a resolution does not mean it is free to brake it. Many UNGA resolutions have now become customary law even if they were not binding.

Even a recommendatory resolution can, especially if more resolutions of the same type/content were passed or if ‘quoted’ often, be of major influence. An obvious example that comes to mind is Res. 2625, which has been important in matters such as the use of force and self-determination of peoples.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 09:59 PM
This should also be the primary function of the united nation; to promote peace. Where peace exists secondary concerns like health care, education and economic development can prosper. Where war exists the only things that flourish are death and chaos.


I fully agree.


Any nation in the world should be guaranteed freedom from military intervention by hostile nations

Every nation IS guaranteed that under Art 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations. This article prohibits all force, for all purposes, unless a specific charter provision says otherwise, or in the case of self-defence. Which is why the UN intervened when Iraq violently invaded Kuwait (don't forget that Bush Sr. lead an international coalition UNDER UN MANDATE!). Another example is the case of the Falkland Islands, where the British legitimately acted in self-defence against Argentine aggressors.


Any nation who joined would first their entire military forces to the United Nations.

You're missing a word. I assume it's "pledge". I dissagree. You cannot force nations to pledge their troops if they don't want to, unless of course it is a case of jus cogens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_Cogens) : If a security counsil resolution dictates some kind of military intervention (for whatever reason) nations should volounteer...only in the case of jus cogens should they be forced.


Any nation wishing to join must hold a nation wide referendum on the subject, with a 2/3rds majority voting to join.

I don't think that would be a good idea...I'm sure that America would be out the UN if this happened...and america is necessary for the UN to work (for one thing, its the main funder).


Should a nation petition the U.N. for membership (5% of the population petitioning) then referendums will be held even at the expense of military action.

Please rephrase...i don't understand.


A nation must be truly democratic to join.

I understand where you're comming from, BUT if only the "good guys" are in the UN how are you gonna deal with the "bad guys"? You need them in aswell in order to discuss with them and deal with them. Excluding nations from the UN would only make world peace more difficult to reach.


Basic human rights standards will be ensured for all member nations; if the human rights violations exceed a certain level the leadership is recalled and an immediate re-election is held.

It's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (it's quite famous ;) ). And all member states of the UN have promised to abide by them. And when they don't, other countries are allowed (and encouraged) bring this to the UN's attention and sanctions may be taken against those countries. So in short...what you say is already happening.