National Sovreignty and the UN

Should Nations Give up the rule of their people to the UN?

[realbinky]

That first question is an OR question, but my choices are yes or no, a little hard to pick. I assumed yes was to sack the Constitution and no was to keep it.

[johnny]

LOL If the EU should have only 1 vote, it would take them years to make up their minds. If you're waiting for the vote from the EU, better have a lot of patience, a WHOLE lot.

[Moiraine]

Shouldn't those questions be a smidgin less a 'black or white' kind of choice ? It is impossible to reply with "Yes" or "No" without making an extremist and irrealistic and unwise choice ...

Question 1 of 5: Should the US keep it's constitution or scrap it for the UN Charter?
Speaking about the French constitution and not the US one, my choice is no. The UN do NOT replace governments, it completes them, and supersedes them about international matters - peace, but also development programs, scientific programs, ...

Question 2 of 5: Should all nations submit to the rule of the UN?
Yes, for international matters. No for internal matters - the UN has no vocation to replace governments.

Question 3 of 5: Does it make sense for some nations to have greater influence in the UN?
Depends on what you put under 'sense'. And how you define the hierarchy between nations : PIB ? Number of citizens ? ... And on what programs you apply that hierarchy to.

Question 4 of 5: Should the EU have only a single vote in the UN?
Why should the US have more than one vote ?
LOL A quote from the Terry Pratchett books springs in my mind : the city of Ankh-Morpork is governed by a man called the Patrician, whose motto is "One man, one vote. I am the man, I get the vote". [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] ... uh, sorry. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Question 5 of 5: Should the US just pull out of the UN all together?
Again, why ?

Moiraine...does the US get 50 votes in the UN? there are after all 50 seperate states each with its own special interests. If the Eu is a united collection of nation states, should it not get just one vote?

And what I ment by should any nation be more influential than any other....as in should any single nation be able to veto or single handedly stop a motion by the other states?

Black and white choices make the world much easier to live in. If you start giving weasel room then you just complicate affairs to the point where nothing gets done.

[Timber Loftis]

Pulling out of the UN undermines all work done to date. Should not "submit to rule" because the young forming international governmental system is simply not at that stage yet. It's still a "by agreement" cooperative stage.

Which is why different nations having different relative power is still happening. As in contract negotiations, the big guys have more weight to throw around. If the UN ever becomes a body which can effect mandatory rules, then this issue will need to be addressed. You history buffs will recognize this as the central problem in forming the US federal system: how do the states divide power? In the federal system there was the Great COmpromise resulting in our bicameral system: A Senate where all states are equal, and a House where the state's power depends on its (population) size.

There was a prior attempt at a US federal system that the states pulled out of - it was formed under the "Articles of Confederation." I think in the US though, unification was an inevitability even though it took two tries. I think the same is true internationally. It's just a matter of time.

We're on our second try at international governance (remember the League of Nations?). Let's hope it works - because it usually takes a World War for nations to start trying the international government thing again.

BTW - big big huge point. If the UN were nixed right now, there would still be an international governing body - the WTO. WTO addresses TRADE ONLY. UN addresses every issue brought before it. Having only the WTO would be like trying to run your country with only the Federal Trade Commission. The WTO has explicitly said that tangential concerns (such as environment and fair labor) are NOT in its mandate - only the protection of trade is in its mandate.

This means that without the UN, and its some 4000 various treaties, there would be no international body to address anything other than fair trade.

It is my humble opinion that this is horrible regarding many issues. Take environment for example (just because that's my field of expertise). On most issues, the WTO rules would disallow discrimination against widgets based on environmental concerns. This means that a nation could not charge a tariff on a product based on its environmental nastiness.

We'll take CFC's and DDT as examples. Internation regulation of both are dependent on UN treaties: Montreal Protocol and Migratory Bird Treaty (birds are most affected by DDT though it harms humans as well). Take away the UN regulations, and the EU cannot ban or place tarrifs on the imports of CFC's and DDT to EU countries.

Or, it can, but it will pay a whopping fine to the WTO. This means that the EU countries that make comparable, more eco-friendly products (like non-CFC aerosol cans which are the only ones you can buy in the EU or USA right now) will have a market disadvantage.

In other words, the WTO acting *alone* creates a "race to the bottom" because the companies in the USA/EU making products under USA/EU laws will be undersold by the products made using dirtier methods or containing dirtier chemicals.

MagiK, I know you have an Axe the size of Sazerac's to grind regarding the UN. But, if you are in any way advocating a US pull-out of the UN, you are (a) advocating irresponsibility and (b) pipe-dreaming because it ain't ever gonna happen.

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by MagiK: Moiraine...does the US get 50 votes in the UN? there are after all 50 seperate states each with its own special interests. If the Eu is a united collection of nation states, should it not get just one vote?

What a great idea, MagiK ! Given that France is subdivised into nearly 100 sub-entities called "départements", that means we would get twice as many votes as you would !

Oh, it was "one nation = one vote" that you meant ? Oh, then you have a LOT of internal reorganization to make before you are ready to come again onto the international stage. Making 50 constitutions, making laws for 50 nations, electing 50 Presidents and Parliaments ...

Originally posted by MagiK: And what I ment by should any nation be more influential than any other....as in should any single nation be able to veto or single handedly stop a motion by the other states?

If you a referring to the use of veto in the UN, well, remember that the veto right is included in the UN rules. It would have made no sense to include in the rules "you have veto right, but you can't use it, or the UN are no more", would it ? If all nations together feel the rules should be changed, then let's change them together. But a change can't come from one nation wanting all of a sudden to change the rules because they don't suit it.

Originally posted by MagiK: Black and white choices make the world much easier to live in. If you start giving weasel room then you just complicate affairs to the point where nothing gets done.

Oh sure MagiK. Simple choices for simple men. Let me suggest this one : War is bad. Therefore, let's not do it. Ever. Is that simple enough ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

EDIT : If choices are that simple, why is that that you persistently advocate that a lot of experience is required to give weight to someone's opinion ?

[ 02-28-2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

[Timber Loftis]

Moiraine, there is no way you can argue it is fair the US gets one vote and Australia gets one vote and Canada gets one vote but the EU gets one voter per country. It's silly and unjust. All three countries I mentioned have smaller governmental bodies (states/ provinces) which is what EU countries truly are after the EU formed.

If the EU countries could agree on the issues, they could literally hijack the UN and make it such that, even given my dissertation above, I would jump on MagiK's "Down with the UN" bandwagon.

As well, as long as each EU country gets one vote, you force the USA to use diplomacy to create divisiveness among EU member nations. Get rid of the entire farce, I say.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Moiraine...does the US get 50 votes in the UN? there are after all 50 seperate states each with its own special interests. If the Eu is a united collection of nation states, should it not get just one vote?

What a great idea, MagiK ! Given that France is subdivised into nearly 100 sub-entities called "départements", that means we would get twice as many votes as you would [/QUOTE]No. Wrong wrong wrong. To continue on your train of thought, Kentucky has 120 counties, and that's only 1 state. Oh, and all states DO have constitutions, so the paperwork's already done.

[edit]: All 50 states also have legislatures and a head-of-state (governor). Let me assure you that any state can operate as a separate nation to full functioning and legal capability. The only thing blocking this is federalism. Oh, and if you take a state like California or Texas and compare it internationally, it would still be on the top 10 lists based on size and GNP.

[ 02-28-2003, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Black and white choices make the world much easier to live in. If you start giving weasel room then you just complicate affairs to the point where nothing gets done. Oh sure MagiK. Simple choices for simple men. Let me suggest this one : War is bad. Therefore, let's not do it. Ever. Is that simple enough ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Flamebait, [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] , irrelevant, and non-productive comment there.