A Real Need to Reform U.N.

[Adam's Apple]

A World Without the UN?
By Ernesto Zedillo for Forbes Magazine 03.28.05

Not so fast! The first question that must be posed is whether a system of collective responsibility to pursue peace and security still makes equal sense for the strong and the weak countries of the world. I believe it does.

The weak want to know that if they're threatened by another country the international community will not be indifferent. The powerful know that even if they had the resources to wage war successfully against any potential aggressor state, it would be better to spare those resources if their security and national interest could be indubitably protected by other means.

They also know that today's security threats are very different from traditional intercountry conflicts. Terrorists and other transnational criminals, along with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, constitute perils that no country, irrespective of its economic or military might, can defeat alone. Cooperative and collective action is required.

The next pertinent question is whether the nearly 60-year-old United Nations can be the institution to organize and deliver that collective action. I say it can be, as long as the institution is reformed and strengthened to perform its essential functions effectively.

It would be a monumental mistake to condemn the UN to extinction, either by decision or neglect. Eventually, but probably only after we'd endured a dramatic increase in violent conflict and its destructive consequences, it would become imperative to invent the UN anew.

Topics covered in this article: "If Deficient, Fix It" and "Basis for Reform"

for full article http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2005/0328/041.html



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Annie]

I used to feel this way, no longer. At least for the US, this is an organization beyond redemption.

 

[CSM]

As was pointed out in the article, reformation of the UN has been discussed for some time without any action being taken. I suspect that the expectation for the UN to reform itself will have as much result as the UN usually gets on most issues. In other words, any attempt at reform will be inneffective.

Of course, it will be the fault of the United States and the Bush administration that the United nations cannot or will not make itself into a legitimate and effective organization. Sarcasm, folks.

 

[Annie]

As was pointed out in the article, reformation of the UN has been discussed for some time without any action being taken. I suspect that the expectation for the UN to reform itself will have as much result as the UN usually gets on most issues. In other words, any attempt at reform will be inneffective.

Of course, it will be the fault of the United States and the Bush administration that the United nations cannot or will not make itself into a legitimate and effective organization. Sarcasm, folks.

Asking this organization to reform itself is like asking a child if they want lima beans or a cookie:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18832

 

[Adam's Apple]

It's the job of the member nations to press for reform/restructuring.

As indicated in Mr. Zedillo’s article, it has been understood for quite some time by those who are officially affiliated with the U.N. and by those who are not that the organization as currently structured is not working. Since the U.N. already exists, we might as well use the experiences we have had with it over the years to try to reform/restructure it to make it a more effective instrument for maintaining world peace. As the article indicated, if the U.N. did not exist, it would have to be invented.

For the U.N. to work to the satisfaction of all countries, it will have to be what it currently is not: non-political, with definite goals and powers assigned to it that member nations cannot ignore at their choosing, diligent and firm in carrying out its resolutions and assigned charges, and corruption free to the extent possible.

Mr. Dervis’ proposal for restructuring the Security Council would make for a fairer functioning than the current one-country, one-vote procedure. There is a great difference in what financial and military support and diplomatic influence each country can bring to the U.N., and this has to be taken into consideration instead of the current practice of treating all nations as if they were equals. There is no comparison between a country such as the United States and Chile, for example, yet in the U.N. they are treated as equals.

 

[Avatar4321]

I propose we reform the UN the same way we reformed the Articles of Confederation. If we want to create some international organization it should be a league of Representative governments which require that all members have representative governments.

Of course the easier way is just to use the longest lasting international organization: The United States of America. and screw the third third level of buearacracy. We can start annexing any people who wished to join us like mexico.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I liked your first paragraph better. If a requirement for membership in the current U.N. was that a country had to have a representative government in place, the organization would probably function a whole lot better than it currently does.