Time To Eliminate--or Change--The United Nations

[Johnny Tremain]

The world should do one of two things:

1) Eliminate the United Nations.

2) Re-organize it so that it represents the world by population, national GDP and some other factors to be decided as equitably as one can. Giving stupid little cartels and tiny hamlets a vote and some measure of equality is insane. And--start throwing out countries that are like the Sudan or Syria. Throw them out and forbid trade or air travel or passports for them.

AND--time to move it out of the USA.
We have given them too much time and money already.
Sink or swim time.

 

[Aus22]

Johnny Tremain, The problem of the UN is that it was set up in 1945 and represented the world powers at that time.
It is hard to change but the Five Security Council veto members UH, France , UK, USA and China do represent the power breakdown to day. Germany is now more important than France. Brazil should represent South America and South Africa , Africa. India is now an important country in Asia. It is unlikely there will be any change soon but a reform UN is necessary not elimination. It has prevented many wars since 1945, the longest period of peace in Europe.

 

[Cruella]

Brazil should represent South America and South Africa

Why? What do they even have in common?

 

[steveox]

I agree,,U.N is the worst ideas liberals have created. Harry Truman created it. So why not break up America? Look how Russia dissolved their union,,They broke up the ukraine,Lithuania,Belarus and Other soviet block states. Russia is getting better in economics because of the break up. So why not this Idea North Carrolina,South Carrolina,Georgia,Florida,Alabama,Mississippi,Louisina,Texas,Oklahoma,Arkansus,Tennesee,Kentucky and Virgina become The Confederate states of America. California,Nevada,Arizona,New Mexico,Colorado,Utah,Oregon,Washington,Alaska and Hawaii become Pacific States of America. And the rest still remain United States of America. So there. The south will be strongly conservitive country and the left coast will be very liberal and the rest will be somewhat liberal. 3 countries just like Russia broke up. Then the South dont have to listen to the supreme court and we have our own southern president.It also means no more I.R.S to deal with down in the south.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

The UN is a place where poor folks are given a nice brocade chair to sit in and then they are asked if they think the successful people with money should give a large portion of it to their dictator.

ALL countries without representative government should be eliminated from the UN.
And it should not be in the USA.
We have funded/housed this thing as long as we should.
Let others take the rudder.

 

[BigRob]

The Security Council is really all that matters in regards to the United Nations -- and the United States should NOT dilute the power of that organ in any manner.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

The Security Council is really all that matters in regards to the United Nations -- and the United States should NOT dilute the power of that organ in any manner.

Power.
POWER?
WHAT power?

Once you give tyrants a veto--then it is a closed matter.

 

[ericrite]

The world should do one of two things:

1) Eliminate the United Nations.

2) Re-organize it so that it represents the world by population, national GDP and some other factors to be decided as equitably as one can. Giving stupid little cartels and tiny hamlets a vote and some measure of equality is insane. And--start throwing out countries that are like the Sudan or Syria. Throw them out and forbid trade or air travel or passports for them.

AND--time to move it out of the USA.
We have given them too much time and money already.
Sink or swim time.

Represented by population? So you would give China 4 votes for every one that America gets? Truly? Same with India? You would make Indonesia approximately equal to us? Even factoring in GDP you'd neuter all of Europe, along with all of our allies except Brazil. Should we mail our nuke codes to North Korea while we're at it, or should we just press the red button and wait for sweet relief?

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Represented by population? So you would give China 4 votes for every one that America gets? Truly? Same with India? You would make Indonesia approximately equal to us? Even factoring in GDP you'd neuter all of Europe, along with all of our allies except Brazil. Should we mail our nuke codes to North Korea while we're at it, or should we just press the red button and wait for sweet relief?

Well, would you give Tuvalu the same vote as China?
The whole thing needs to be re-thought and figured out better.
What comprises a nation?
The way it is now--is simply astonishingly stupid.

 

[ericrite]

Why? What do they even have in common?

They are each the most industrious nations on their continents, and are have the fastest growing economies and are actively improving their human rights policies. However, continents are not like sovereign nations, and having one country act as the representative for all other nations in a region is a recipe for global war. Lead nations could easily use their UN power to extort trade agreements etc. from their neighbors. I agree that the UN needs reform, but the ideal solution requires empowering the UN to have some real power of enforcement beyond trade sanctions and resolutions for condemnation.

What the UN truly needs is the power unseat oppressive regimes. The problem is, if we employ any real standards, the UN would be forced to deal with the human rights abuses in China, but the global unrest that would result would be untenable.

There are no good solutions to this problem yet.

 

[ericrite]

Well, would you give Tuvalu the same vote as China?
The whole thing needs to be re-thought and figured out better.
What comprises a nation?
The way it is now--is simply astonishingly stupid.

Johnny, for the first time in any thread, I agree in part with you. The system now is ineffective. A one to one vote does not work, and the security council as it stands doesn't work. China is a looming giant that needs to be rooted, but there is no good way to do it.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Johnny, for the first time in any thread, I agree in part with you. The system now is ineffective. A one to one vote does not work, and the security council as it stands doesn't work. China is a looming giant that needs to be rooted, but there is no good way to do it.

Good to see that, even with the unnecessary qualifier.

Most things are much simpler than they seem.
If not by-- 1) land area, or 2) population--then what other measure makes any sense at all?

 

[ericrite]

Good to see that, even with the unnecessary qualifier.

Most things are much simpler than they seem.
If not by-- 1) land area, or 2) population--then what other measure makes any sense at all?

The trick is finding something that China will agree to. They are in an excellent position right now, so until we get some significant leverage or can destabilize their economy enough to oust the current regime, it is better to keep the devil you know.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

The trick is finding something that China will agree to. They are in an excellent position right now, so until we get some significant leverage or can destabilize their economy enough to oust the current regime, it is better to keep the devil you know.

You sound like Neville Chamberlain.
There are--alternatives.
They are destabilizing our economy now--by design--but we can withstand that.
For a while.

 

[BigRob]

Power.
POWER?
WHAT power?

Once you give tyrants a veto--then it is a closed matter.

Any and all power that rests within the UN sits with the Security Council. If it is ineffective -- who cares -- at least it is not a detriment against the United States. It should not be expanded -- nor should we leave.

As someone once told me:
That the UN has been ineffective and often made decisions that run counter to U.S. interests and those of its allies, particularly at the General Assembly is one thing. The reality that the UN is still widely perceived as a critical global institution makes it almost a requirement for the U.S. to continue to participate given its myriad global interests. The U.S. can ill afford not to have a voice at any serious global institution (IMF, WTO, World Bank, UN, etc.).