Reform the UN – but how?

#21
It's worth pointing out that there's (at least) four different UNs.

There's the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) which was my first proper civvy job after leaving the military, and a right mess it is too: but nothing that a very large kick *********** couldn't sort out with the right will.

There's all the UN agencies (the 'blue*' UN). A mixed bag of alphabet soup, ranging from the really rather good World Food Programme and the World Medical Organisation, through the 'could do betters' (where I'd include UNICEF and UNDP) to the laughable UNESCO and UNCHR.

There's the political UN, including the UNSC and the General Assembly, which are the bits being discussed here so far.

But then there's all the quietly working bits: things like the international maritime organisation, international standards organisation etc. These all have different relationships to the UN core (even the World Bank and IMF were set up under the UN framework).
 
#23
This.

While Russia has a veto, nothing worthwhile will ever come out of the UN.

The UN never has been and never will be a/political.

MB
TBH it could be a whole lot worse without the veto - look at some of the majority votes in recent times for examples
 
#24
As an ex-UN functionary (with nice light-blue passport and white Landcruiser) and having seen how the organisation works at the 'sharp end' (well... semi-blunt end), I suggest the following:

Create a three-tier system within the UN.
Tier 1: 'UNSC' but with only democratic countries that have nuclear weapons (US, UK, France, Israel, India) and Japan and Canada (because they're decent). Russia and China can have observer status but no voting rights.​
Tier 2: Democratic countries that follow the rule of law, etc. (i.e. civilised countries e.g. Germany, Sweden, etc.)​
Tier 3: Non-democratic countries/dictatorships/absolute monarchies/scum and other socialists.​
Only Tier 1 and Tier 2 can vote. Only language permitted is English (to keep costs down and to be a marker of national advancement). Tier 3 have observer status only.

Tier 1 and 2 countries get to use the international financial markets at 'AAA' rating/pricing for borrowing money. All others have to pay BB- rates of interest to give them an incentive to sort out their shit. Also all Tier 1 and 2 countries should have preferential trade tariffs and Tier 3 goods are taxed at a minimum of 20%.

'Westernise' the UN bureaucracy: get rid of all the 'affirmative action' targets that have resulted in corrupt little shits from Zimbabwe and other shitholes getting important jobs and instead give the jobs to Tier 1 and Tier 2 nationals who have the relevant experience and qualifications. Tier 3 nationals would be forbidden from holding any UN job or receiving any UN funding.

As to the OP whining about the evils of capitalism: it is capitalism that has seen the greatest ever reduction in global poverty and it has been socialism that has seen the greatest environmental damage ever done to the Earth (and I've been to many of these places). It isn't coincidence that China, under communism the most polluting and polluted country in the world, now that is has capitalism under a one-party rule, is the world's largest maker and user of solar energy.
Works for me .... Dread for Secretary General !
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
#25
I'd like to say that once I submitted this thread to ARRSE, I was effectively "off the air" for more than two hours. I couldn't connect to ARRSE or even the internet in that time. I don't know why, but make of that what you will.

I'm a complete nothing and an absolute nobody, but did someone, somewhere decide that I shouldn't discuss this subject on ARRSE? Why would that be?

MsG
 
#26
I'd like to say that once I submitted this thread to ARRSE, I was effectively "off the air" for more than two hours. I couldn't connect to ARRSE or even the internet in that time. I don't know why, but make of that what you will.

I'm a complete nothing and an absolute nobody, but did someone, somewhere decide that I shouldn't discuss this subject on ARRSE? Why would that be?

MsG
Yeah, Bugsy. Make the thread all about you.
 

DaManBugs

LE
Book Reviewer
#28
Yeah, Bugsy. Make the thread all about you.
Now why would I want to do that, Gunge_Thickie, when you and the rest of the ARRSE vermin do it for me?

The subject is the role of the UN in these more modern times and how it could be changed to be a more effective force in a world seemingly bent on destruction. What are your thoughts on that, mush?

MsG
 
#29
I'd like to say that once I submitted this thread to ARRSE, I was effectively "off the air" for more than two hours. I couldn't connect to ARRSE or even the internet in that time. I don't know why, but make of that what you will.

I'm a complete nothing and an absolute nobody, but did someone, somewhere decide that I shouldn't discuss this subject on ARRSE? Why would that be?

MsG
One part of your statement is correct :D
 
#30
I'd like to say that once I submitted this thread to ARRSE, I was effectively "off the air" for more than two hours. I couldn't connect to ARRSE or even the internet in that time. I don't know why, but make of that what you will.

I'm a complete nothing and an absolute nobody, but did someone, somewhere decide that I shouldn't discuss this subject on ARRSE? Why would that be?

MsG
You think of all this the things that are discussed on Arrse & the wider Internet, someone specifically decided to terminate your internet connection temporarily, as you’re such a target?

Err...take the tinfoil bowler off and grow up.
 
#31
I'd like to say that once I submitted this thread to ARRSE, I was effectively "off the air" for more than two hours. I couldn't connect to ARRSE or even the internet in that time. I don't know why, but make of that what you will.

I'm a complete nothing and an absolute nobody, but did someone, somewhere decide that I shouldn't discuss this subject on ARRSE? Why would that be?

MsG
It was God.
Or an even bigger boy.
 
#32
Just remove the power to veto, simple, effective and costs nothing.

Trouble is the Russians will probably veto the idea.
So would France m UK and US

Can you imagine how the corrupt little groups would vote en mass on resolutions such as
England give Argentina the Falklands
England* (and US) Give Eleventy million to Africa country X for slave reperations ( followed by votes for Y Z A B etc) rest assured the subsequent British resolution to have reperations paid by North Africa will be blocked.
England to pay compensation for having an empire
All Israelis to walk single file into the ovens*
Gibralter to be returned to Spain
Cueta to be returned to Morocco ( To the amusement of the UK as it slaps Spain mid celebration)

After that voting and resolutions by tin pot dictators would be more akin to the Eurovision song contest in terms of value.

I can see the need for the Veto to stamp on lots of tin pot idiocy but at the same time it does pull the UNs teeth as Russia and the US oppose things detrimental to their friends (or just detrimental to image)-
I think the Vetos usage needs limiting - the obvious one is no veto for Human rights issues - unfortunately having spent a couple of days googling the UNHCR im not so sure that's as sensible as it seems.

*Deliberate usage in these things England tends to bear the blame and Scotland Irelands involvement overlooked - although often that's because to foreigners all too often Britain = England (mind you try saying UK in French - im from England thses days)
**Hyperbole but im sure you get the drift
 
Last edited:
#34
I'd like to say that once I submitted this thread to ARRSE, I was effectively "off the air" for more than two hours. I couldn't connect to ARRSE or even the internet in that time. I don't know why, but make of that what you will.

I'm a complete nothing and an absolute nobody, but did someone, somewhere decide that I shouldn't discuss this subject on ARRSE? Why would that be?

MsG
Your connections crap / a local distribution point failed / some one cut a wire - loss of connections a regular occurrence chez moi and I dont see an abundance of helicopters black or otherwise

Be a bit pointless stopping you discussing it - yet leaving it to every one else - its not as if anyones opinion of the UN is on message either all be it for different reasons
 
#36
This subject has come up before (*cough* J button *cough*) & the situation remains the same:

I've given UN reform/replacement a fair bit of thought over the years & I've come to the opinion is that the UN is obsolete, too badly-organised, too weighted in favour of undemocratic nations, too easily exploited by some of its worst members (e.g., KSA) & too discredited an organisation to be worth keeping. It's no longer necessary to get hundreds of diplomats in the same room when govts want to communicate with each other en masse, not that there's much reason to do that. Smaller groups of interested nations assembled for more specific purposes (e.g., G7, G20, Pacific Forum, NATO, OAS, etc.) are more effective for intergovernmental discussion & co-operation anyway.

The various bits that are useful - IMO, WHO, IAO - etc. should be split off & become independent. Everything else should be consigned to oblivion.

The UN's usefulness has always primarily been to help provide just a little bit more stability than we would otherwise have by (1) establishing a baseline for what's acceptable conduct by nations & encouraging nations to behave according to the same set of conventions & (2), by way of seeming to have the support of the 'international community,' give a veneer of legitimacy to decisions agreed to by not-very-large groups of countries (such as the permanent members of the SC). There should be something(s) to do that. A world forum of democratic nations (along the lines of the G20 but larger membership & wider variety of issues) could be a good idea, though determining a clear, uniform & immutable delineation between 'democratic' & 'undemocratic' could be tricky, & excluding a large & powerful country like China would be problematic, but it would have the air of 'legitimacy' that the UN lacks. A world security forum could perform the job of the UNSC, & do it better if the membership criteria permanently exclude states that have no interest in keeping the peace (e.g., KSA; Iran) or no ability to contribute to doing so (e.g., Micronesia; Lesotho). It could include undemocratic nations (e.g., China; Russia) &, to avoid being cumbersomely large, each seat not held by a permanent member could rotate through a fixed list of nations every several years.
All pie in the sky of course, unfortunately.
 
#37
Now why would I want to do that, Gunge_Thickie, when you and the rest of the ARRSE vermin do it for me?



MsG
Because you end every post with a question. It's a pretty lame way of ensuring the conversation always comes back to you. Don't you think?
 

smeg-head

ADC
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#38
This subject has come up before (*cough* J button *cough*) & the situation remains the same:

I've given UN reform/replacement a fair bit of thought over the years & I've come to the opinion is that the UN is obsolete, too badly-organised, too weighted in favour of undemocratic nations, too easily exploited by some of its worst members (e.g., KSA) & too discredited an organisation to be worth keeping. It's no longer necessary to get hundreds of diplomats in the same room when govts want to communicate with each other en masse, not that there's much reason to do that. Smaller groups of interested nations assembled for more specific purposes (e.g., G7, G20, Pacific Forum, NATO, OAS, etc.) are more effective for intergovernmental discussion & co-operation anyway.

The various bits that are useful - IMO, WHO, IAO - etc. should be split off & become independent. Everything else should be consigned to oblivion.

The UN's usefulness has always primarily been to help provide just a little bit more stability than we would otherwise have by (1) establishing a baseline for what's acceptable conduct by nations & encouraging nations to behave according to the same set of conventions & (2), by way of seeming to have the support of the 'international community,' give a veneer of legitimacy to decisions agreed to by not-very-large groups of countries (such as the permanent members of the SC). There should be something(s) to do that. A world forum of democratic nations (along the lines of the G20 but larger membership & wider variety of issues) could be a good idea, though determining a clear, uniform & immutable delineation between 'democratic' & 'undemocratic' could be tricky, & excluding a large & powerful country like China would be problematic, but it would have the air of 'legitimacy' that the UN lacks. A world security forum could perform the job of the UNSC, & do it better if the membership criteria permanently exclude states that have no interest in keeping the peace (e.g., KSA; Iran) or no ability to contribute to doing so (e.g., Micronesia; Lesotho). It could include undemocratic nations (e.g., China; Russia) &, to avoid being cumbersomely large, each seat not held by a permanent member could rotate through a fixed list of nations every several years.
All pie in the sky of course, unfortunately.
I agree. The world already has a peacekeeping force, the USA ( as long as that country signs it's life away to USA).
The WHO needs to be relocated to Africa and UNHCR needs to be based in the med. Obviously we can't allow too many third world countries to have a say in the World's policies, as they are all Johnny Foreigners, poorly educated and unable to fend for themselves. In fact, a better bet would be to allow only White, English-speaking countries to organise the world. Obviously not the Irish or the Welsh, but good solid English chappies.
 
#40
[QUOTE="DaManBugs, post: 8635434, member: 105084"...I'm a complete nothing and an absolute nobody, but did someone, somewhere decide that I shouldn't discuss this subject on ARRSE? Why would that be?

MsG[/QUOTE]

Could it be you are a bit of a c&*t?
 

Similar threads

Top