Is it time to revamp the UN's operations and governing structure?

[GENIERE]

The UN has ceased to be useful, if it ever was. It was at least tolerable, but now known to be completely untrustworthy. To maintain its somewhat useful functions its operations must be altered to incorporate good business practices. Its books must be always open to public scrutiny. Its operations must be efficient, business like, and competitive. Each of its operations i.e., world health, must be duplicated by a competitive operation which will compete for funding. The most efficient operation will receive the greater funding and increase its scope. Each will have a board of directors, a CFO, and a CEO. The latter two positions will receive an income and perks competitive with private industry so as to attract the finest. They will be hired and fired based on success. The overall operation will be subject to the political constraints of the UN.

The governing of the UN must be drastically changed. No longer can any nation that does not elect its leaders via a democratic process have any vote in General Assembly. All nations can be members, request and receive needed aid, but must earn a voting privilege. The same should be the case in the Security Council, but it would be unrealistic to bar China from either a vote or a chair. The Syria’s and their ilk would disappear. The EU presents a special problem. It cannot act as a political unity and also be allowed to have several members seated on the Security Council.

 

[hughes johnson]

it would be unrealistic to bar China from either a vote or a chair. The Syria’s and their ilk would disappear.

And the French?

 

[Dissident Dan]

And the French?

Is that really necessary? Geniere was making serious points.

I agree that the UN is not effective.

I would favor replacing it with an organization along the lines of "The Union of Elected Government". The UN already has so many member organizations and so many rules, that it seems that it would not work to try to reorganize it. This new organization, I think, shoud coexist with the UN, at least until it is mature enough to supplant it.

Limiting membership to republics has the following advantages:

1) Republics have much greater concern for welfare. This is probably due to both the types of government officials that representative governments yield and the nature of Western society. Third-world dictatorships would not be on the human rights commission.
2) Limiting the number of participants yields greater efficiency. Things can actually be done in a reasonable period of time.
3) Greater cooperation. The historical, cultural, and political closeness of republics will allow them to cooperate better.

I agree that all its dealings should be subject to stringent "sunshine" laws.

This organization should have its own standing military/police forces. Perhaps NATO could be integrated with it. There should be rules mandating emergency meetings and timely decisions when situations of civil war, genocide, etc. appear.

 

[kat]

I think that is probably the reasoning behind creating "The Council for a Community of Democracies". As it gains strength, we may see it usurping the power of the United Nations.

 

[member 5645]

I think that is probably the reasoning behind creating "The Council for a Community of Democracies". As it gains strength, we may see it usurping the power of the United Nations.

Link me? I'm not aware of this

 

[kat]

http://www.ccd21.org/

 

[Zero]

A redo is a good idea...scrapping it entirely is silly, but fixing and tweaking is never a horrible plan.

 

[GENIERE]

Kat - Thanks for the link!

It is something I should have been aware of. Since it began during Clinton's watch, I may have summarily dismissed it.

 

[cragwolf]

I think the biggest problem with the UN is that the world's only superpower has failed to properly support it, and often even worked directly against it. The next biggest problem is that like any large organisation the scum rises to the top.