UN with a bite!

[Barry the Sprout]

Considering the uproar about national sovereignty that occured over here when the EU security force was proposed I think an internatinal army would have real problems in being established. We could make one - fine, but getting the other nations to basically give up the right to self defense should they disagree with the majority of the council will be very, very, tough!

I beleive that the proportion of the world who are American is 6% right? The current situation with the cuba blockade is that only the US and Israel regularly support it. If there was only one army and the council had majority control over it then both countries would have been attacked long ago. Just an example of how I don't think this will happen as long as politics continue to be conducted in the way that they are.

[Skunk]

A replacement for the UN? Wow! This is ambitious. OK, the UN isn't perfect, but it is the best we've got and reforming it will be a problem.

Ryanamur actually posted most of the real issues here and I should point out why they exist and why (therefore) the 'imperfect' UN will probably always remain.

"1- Eliminate the Security Council. In an organisation where all are equal, it's counter productive to the image of the organisation if some are elevated with vetoe rights over others."
Not without good reason, those countries whose troops will be deployed the most are going to want to have the biggest say. If the average field deployment numbers are say, for the UK, around 3000 men and for Pakistan around 50, the UK will feel that it ought to have more to say on the issue. If it doesn't feel that it has enough say over how sooo many of its own citizens are placed in possible mortal peril then it will pull out of the organisation.

"Have all nations recongnize that the UN as enforcement jurisdiction within all signatories boundries."
Already done![/i]

"Give the UN a military force capable of enforcing it's will even against the strongest opponent (currently China, followed by the US"
Nuclear weapons and all? And these troops will come from which 'rich-enough' nations to field a modern, fully trained and cohesive army of 6-8 million troops, several fleets of the most technology packed warships and a few hundred squadrons of technically advanced fighters...?

"Have all nations base their votes on the good of the world rather than the self-interest of a nation. No more of those concensus motions that are debated for days only to arrive to the perfect text that's adopted by all but that really is of no value."
You should meet my mate, Karl Marx... But seriously, in a democracy, we vote to put people in power who are aligned with our interests. If they fail to serve those interests, we kick them out. No politician will put the needs of his country behind those of others. Imagine if you have high unemployment in your country and the 'greater good' resolution will create even greater unemployment, will you as a politician go for higher unemployment because 'it's the right thing to do'? If you do, you will have a short political career and your successor will soon overturn things...

"Have all nations pay their full dues to the organisation"
99% of all countries already pay their full contributions to the UN and only one country has defaulted for non-economic reasons.


Then of course, there is the more 'pro-active' methods of enforcing the new organisation's resolutions.
Lets see now - economic sanctions, preferential trade to signatories etc were mentioned here. This wouldn't work because you will wind up with a rich poor divide and those outside the UN will blame them for their pains and so rises a new reign of terrorism....
A new world army is created.... We have this already and it has one main problem - and no it's not language. The problem is about each nation providing highly trained, well equipped service personnel. It's no problem for the UK to spend $1 million training one SAS guy. It's no problem for the UK to lose a couple of $25 million dollar fighter jets in action or to move a couple of war ships from one place to another at the cost of a couple of million dollars - but how do you ask this of Romania (for example?). And when its only US or 'western' planes that make those bomb runs, who do the 'victims' blame, the UN or the US/UK?
No, percentage particpation ain't gonna work there...

I agree that the UN has it's problems, but it does have some uses and its courts of law do have teeth - you just have to know which tooth to use and when.
Example. Currently, the UK is upgrading one of its Nuclear plants to handle and reprocess nuclear waste from other countries. This plant is located on the west coast of England. Ireland is furious about this - they are worried about possible terrorist scenarios and what might happen in the event of an accident. Would the poison blow over the Irish sea to them? Would the Irish sea become contaminated in the event of an accident? The Irish government is currently taking action against the UK in the International Maritime Court in Hambourg, Germany and are seeking a ban on the reprocessing of materials in that particular plant.

No, the UN doesn't solve everything but it tries hard. It was behind the original global warming agreements and tries hard to bring nations together to discuss important world issues - but I don't think that any nation is that happy about releasing sovereignty over its territories or troops. It will be a few hundred years before we are ready for that.

Europe has come a long way in trying to bring nations together - but national interests remain sticking points and both money (in the form of subsidies) and prestige count in the European parliament above and beyond all else. If such a small and closely related (economically, idelogically and historically) group of countries can't agree on such basic issues and are unwillng to set relatively minor national interests aside, how the hell can the rest of the world?