The Fundamental Flaw with the UN

[WanderingKnight]

Much talk has been made lately about how the US is or is not following UN policy by engaging in war with Iraq. This topic is not about that per se...but rather in My own percieved flaw in the UN as a body.

The UN, as an organization, makes no distinctions between the style of government of it's member nations. It is itself a democratic body with member that are themselve not democracies.

Why, for example, should the UN give equal weight to votes from North and South Korea?

[bjornart]

Originally posted by WanderingKnight
Much talk has been made lately about how the US is or is not following UN policy by engaging in war with Iraq. This topic is not about that per se...but rather in My own percieved flaw in the UN as a body.

The UN, as an organization, makes no distinctions between the style of government of it's member nations. It is itself a democratic body with member that are themselve not democracies.

Why, for example, should the UN give equal weight to votes from North and South Korea?

For the same reason that any good democracy allows the stupid, the mean and the ignorant to vote. The main purpose of the UN is to deal with issues between nations, if you limit the votes to the nations you like, the whole thing falls apart. It might not be perfect, but it's better than the alternatives.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by bjornart


For the same reason that any good democracy allows the stupid, the mean and the ignorant to vote. The main purpose of the UN is to deal with issues between nations, if you limit the votes to the nations you like, the whole thing falls apart. It might not be perfect, but it's better than the alternatives.

There are a couple of differences between 'voting' in the UN and 'voting' in a democracy.

In a democracy, the main decision is to decide on a particular candidate. Usually, the candidates are the 'top' people. So, even the 'stupid' people are limited as to what they can do. (Yes, occasionally stupid people elect stupid politicians. But, you have to assume that politicians know a little about what they're doing. They can prioritize, bring issues to people's attention, etc.)

Voting in the UN is more like voting in a referrendum. You vote on particular issues. While this is perhaps a more direct method of voting, it means that the stupid and mean have a more direct influence on the outcome.

Another difference... in the UN, the mean and stupid make up a majority, in a democracy, they probably are only a (sizable) minority.

A third difference.... there is no 'proportional voting' in the UN. A country with a population of thousands gets the same vote as a country with the population of millions. Most democracys have at least a little more 'proportional representation'.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by bjornart


For the same reason that any good democracy allows the stupid, the mean and the ignorant to vote. The main purpose of the UN is to deal with issues between nations, if you limit the votes to the nations you like, the whole thing falls apart. It might not be perfect, but it's better than the alternatives.

Well stated.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by bjornart


For the same reason that any good democracy allows the stupid, the mean and the ignorant to vote. The main purpose of the UN is to deal with issues between nations, if you limit the votes to the nations you like, the whole thing falls apart. It might not be perfect, but it's better than the alternatives.

At the founding of the US, for purposes of representation, Indians not taxed and 3/5 the number of slaves were not counted.

Do you know why?

[John Bryce]

I am surprised by a lot of the anit-UN talk - especially by Americans. The U.S. was the major force behind the creation of the U.N. in 1946.

Until President W. Bush, I can not think of any American president since the end of WW II that has acted so unilaterally.

No, the U.N. is not perfect, but since 1946 the U.N. has been the instrument behind 150 peace agreements between nations of the world. That should at least count for something.

Just my two cents.

[Richard G]

Democrocies of the world should unite, and stomp the crap out of every brutal dictator, freeing all the oppressed people in the world. All non-democrocies should be thrown out of the UN until they are democratic.

Nobody (but us) has a sack big enough to do that though.

[Jim Lennox]

The UN is about peace not democracy.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by bjornart


For the same reason that any good democracy allows the stupid, the mean and the ignorant to vote. The main purpose of the UN is to deal with issues between nations, if you limit the votes to the nations you like, the whole thing falls apart. It might not be perfect, but it's better than the alternatives.

there is no alternative. there either is form of body at which all nations meet, or there is not. no one would suggest that there should not be such a body.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


there is no alternative. there either is form of body at which all nations meet, or there is not. no one would suggest that there should not be such a body.

Yes there are alternatives.

A nation cannot join the EU, for instance, unless they meet certain standards set by existing members.

I'm all for giving Syrians (for example) clout in governing the world, but I fail to see how Bashir Assad can be taken seriously as the 'voice' of the Syrian people.

Many people would (and have) suggested that there should be no such organization where Gerhard Schroeder has no more say than Muammar Qadhafi.

MattJ

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Yes there are alternatives.

A nation cannot join the EU, for instance, unless they meet certain standards set by existing members.



well, derr. that is because it is an economic union, not just a political body, for europeans only. apples/oranges.





I'm all for giving Syrians (for example) clout in governing the world, but I fail to see how Bashir Assad can be taken seriously as the 'voice' of the Syrian people.

Many people would (and have) suggested that there should be no such organization where Gerhard Schroeder has no more say than Muammar Qadhafi.

MattJ

and democracy gives fundie xians the same vote as anyone else. there is no alternative. we need a world body. what we get is all there is. that it is not capable of solving the worlds problems is hardly surprising. nothing else is capable of that either.

Countries that want to set up their own bodies are free to, for example, G7.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


well, derr. that is because it is an economic union, not just a political body, for europeans only. apples/oranges.

Indeed... derr..

I presented an alternative structure for a body that performs the functions of the UN, and an example of a political body that uses that structure.


Originally posted by a_unique_person
and democracy gives fundie xians the same vote as anyone else. there is no alternative. we need a world body. what we get is all there is. that it is not capable of solving the worlds problems is hardly surprising. nothing else is capable of that either.

We need a world body. This body must include every nation in the world. Sez you.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Countries that want to set up their own bodies are free to, for example, G7.

Now you're catching on.

MattJ

[Tony]

Originally posted by John Bryce

Until President W. Bush, I can not think of any American president since the end of WW II that has acted so unilaterally.



Its probobly because you arent thinking at all. Bill Clinton didnt get UN approval for his actions in Kosovo, Haiti or Iraq.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


There are a couple of differences between 'voting' in the UN and 'voting' in a democracy.

In a democracy, the main decision is to decide on a particular candidate. Usually, the candidates are the 'top' people. So, even the 'stupid' people are limited as to what they can do. (Yes, occasionally stupid people elect stupid politicians. But, you have to assume that politicians know a little about what they're doing. They can prioritize, bring issues to people's attention, etc.)


I have to disagree here. What I see is that in most countries the politicians are not 'top' people. 'Top' people always make too many unpopular decisions, bring unpopular issues to people attentions etc. and are replaced by the 'mediocre'. This has little to do with the discussion on the UN though. :)


Voting in the UN is more like voting in a referrendum. You vote on particular issues. While this is perhaps a more direct method of voting, it means that the stupid and mean have a more direct influence on the outcome.


Like they do in Switzerland. Not that I don't agree, direct voting makes for less... 'evening out'. But which level of 'evening out' is the best one is open to debate. I like the Norwegian model, which gives even the stupid a voice if they are many enough. (Norway's 19 counties contribute a certain number of members to the parliament, partly based on population, although the counties farthers from the capital and with the fewest people have more 'MP's per capita. A certain number of seats are distributed among the parties based on the overall percentage of votes country wide, to even things out. A party has to have at least 3.9% of the votes to be eligible for 'evening-out'. Enough digression.)
Comparing countries and the UN is somewhat difficult though, since very few countries have only 191 citizens.


Another difference... in the UN, the mean and stupid make up a majority, in a democracy, they probably are only a (sizable) minority.


Yes, this is a pity. But the best way of changing this is to set a good example and push with all peaceful means available.


A third difference.... there is no 'proportional voting' in the UN. A country with a population of thousands gets the same vote as a country with the population of millions. Most democracys have at least a little more 'proportional representation'.

Yes, but the 'citizens' of the UN are the countries, and not the countries' citizens. The UN deals with international affairs, not intranational. A world government should have a more proportional representation, but the UN isn't one and isn't going to be one.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


At the founding of the US, for purposes of representation, Indians not taxed and 3/5 the number of slaves were not counted.

Do you know why?

My guess would be that they weren't considered citizens, or that they, like women, who weren't counted either, weren't considered 'responsible'.

What's your point?

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Richard G
Democrocies of the world should unite, and stomp the crap out of every brutal dictator, freeing all the oppressed people in the world. All non-democrocies should be thrown out of the UN until they are democratic.

Nobody (but us) has a sack big enough to do that though.

Ah, yes, and this will take only a few weeks will it? And in the mean time all those non-democracies that you're not targeting at the moment will peacefully co-exist with each other and the agressively expanding democracy machine which is whacking their neighbour countries?

I agree that democracy, or at least non-'brutal-tyranny', for all countries should be promoted and sought by those of us blessed to live in the free world. But doing it by force can't work. At least not by my definition of 'work'.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

I presented an alternative structure for a body that performs the functions of the UN, and an example of a political body that uses that structure.


The EU doesn't perform the functions of the UN. The EU members are all UN members and the EU performs functions _beyond_ those. Also the EU has several deciding bodies, including the:


From europa.eu.int
Council of the European Union
The Council represents the Member States at European Union level and constitutes the main decision-making body. The government representatives in the Council are politically responsible to their national parliament and to the citizens they represent.

Seat and composition
The Council's seat is in Brussels, where the ministerial meetings take place, except in April, June and October, when they are held in Luxembourg.
The Council comprises one ministerial level representative of each Member State, empowered to commit his or her government.


Of course, those representatives are elected officials from democratic states.


We need a world body. This body must include every nation in the world. Sez you.


It's an opinion, we all have them. It's also an opinion I agree with. Personally I think the democratic nations of the world should do more to promote 'non-tyrrany' in the rest of the world. A league of democratic nations isn't a bad idea. But those nations won't agree either (unless you suggest France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Denmark, Norway, the US, usw. shouldn't all be in this body?), and it's not an argument for disbanding the UN.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Yes there are alternatives.

A nation cannot join the EU, for instance, unless they meet certain standards set by existing members.

I'm all for giving Syrians (for example) clout in governing the world, but I fail to see how Bashir Assad can be taken seriously as the 'voice' of the Syrian people.

Many people would (and have) suggested that there should be no such organization where Gerhard Schroeder has no more say than Muammar Qadhafi.

MattJ

He isn't seen as the voice of the Syrian people. He's the voice of the Syrian government, which is what matters on the international arena. Aiming for a world government is, at this point in time, complete lunacy.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by bjornart


My guess would be that they weren't considered citizens, or that they, like women, who weren't counted either, weren't considered 'responsible'.

What's your point?

It was the anti-slavery forces that didn't want slaves counted. The slaveholders wanted to count every slave. That way 1000 white votes in Georgia would represent 1000 slaveholders + 40,000 slaves.

Sort of the same way that Kim Jong Il's vote represents 1 man + 22 million people who have zero say in what Kim Jong Il decides.

That would be my point.

MattJ

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by bjornart


The EU doesn't perform the functions of the UN.

I know. Let me be more clear

I presented an alternative structure

for a (hypothetical new) body

that could perform the functions that the UN now performs

and presented the structure of the EU as an example of an existing body using a similar structure.

I don't present the EU itself as an alternative to the UN.

This was in response (only) to A_U_P's ridiculous assertions that there is no alternative and no one would suggest that there should not be such a body. If

replying that an 'alternative' body would be 'different' than the UN is a somewhat less-than-interesting observation. I was quite aware that the EU has several deciding bodies, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I've said.

I'm quite aware that an organization consisting of only democratic nations wouldn't always agree, but again I don't see what this has to do with anything.

I don't believe I was aiming for world government, either. I am arguing against the presence of political power in an international body where a significant number of the member states are dictatorships. I believe such a course perpetuates dictatorships and guards tyranny.

As you have said, we all have opinions. I was (mostly) just responding to A_U_P's suggesting that "no one" holds the opinion that I, in fact, hold.

MattJ

[Tmy]

American resentment of the UN has been around for years. Way before GW Bush was in office. Its largely based on having them located in our back yard (I think at one point Mayor Guliani wanted to sell the UN building as a means of raising funds for New York)

Teh UN is not a democracy. Certain countries have been given favorable status and powers.

Imagine if the US goverment ran this way. "Sorry the bill cant become a law cause North Dakota vetoed".

[bjornart]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

I'm quite aware that an organization consisting of only democratic nations wouldn't always agree, but again I don't see what this has to do with anything.

I don't believe I was aiming for world government, either. I am arguing against the presence of political power in an international body where a significant number of the member states are dictatorships. I believe such a course perpetuates dictatorships and guards tyranny.

As you have said, we all have opinions. I was (mostly) just responding to A_U_P's suggesting that "no one" holds the opinion that I, in fact, hold.


I agree with you there, suggesting 'no one' holds that opinion was plain wrong. I also, in fact, believe that the UN today in some ways perpetuates dictatorships and guards tyranny. But I also believe that the UN works as a tool to decrease and defuse international disputes (not perfectly of course) and that it's the right body to control such efforts as UNESCO, UNICEF etc.

I think there are better ways to fight against dictatorships and tyranny than disbanding the UN and/or creating new international bodies. And that is using the ones we've already got, and using them peacefully.

If you're not aiming for world government, which powers is it you want this new body to have that the UN doesn't have or shouldn't have?

And would India qualify? (Not a particularly relevant question, I know, but the nuclear stand off with Pakistan makes me a bit at unease with the idea of votes based on population. :-D)


It was the anti-slavery forces that didn't want slaves counted. The slaveholders wanted to count every slave. That way 1000 white votes in Georgia would represent 1000 slaveholders + 40,000 slaves.
Sort of the same way that Kim Jong Il's vote represents 1 man + 22 million people who have zero say in what Kim Jong Il decides.


What were the actual positions? Not counting the slaves vs. counting the slaves and adding that voting power to their masters? Or...?
As I said somewhere else, Kim Jong Il's vote doesn't represent 22 million people. It represents the country and government of North Korea in international affairs. Badly, yes, but the practice of interfering directly with the governments of other countries has a very bad track-record. More should be done to encourage reforms in the worst in class. It's not like the high and mighty democracies in the western world have been exerting themselves here. Trying to do it fast and 'surgically' just isn't going to cut it. Bloodless revolutions are only possible when what you're trying to achieve is already available.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by bjornart


I agree with you there, suggesting 'no one' holds that opinion was plain wrong. I also, in fact, believe that the UN today in some ways perpetuates dictatorships and guards tyranny. But I also believe that the UN works as a tool to decrease and defuse international disputes (not perfectly of course) and that it's the right body to control such efforts as UNESCO, UNICEF etc.


Actually, there is nothing that says groups like UNICEF have to operate under the U.N. banner. They could be a separate organization. Or, the countries that give money to UNICEF could instead give their aid directly to the countries that require assistance, thus eliminating the overhead that the U.N. causes and ensuring a higher proportion of the aid gets to the people who really need it.

And UNESCO... Didn't the U.S. leave UNESCO shortly after they held a conference where the majority of time was spent bashing the U.S. over its 'culture'?

So, we have an orgainzation which: Doesn't always handle international disputes well and may help protect opressive countries, yet it costs a lot of money to operate, and the things it does well can be accomplished through other channels.

(Note: I'm not saying the U.N. is useless, but I don't think its all that useful either.)

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Tmy
American resentment of the UN has been around for years. Way before GW Bush was in office. Its largely based on having them located in our back yard (I think at one point Mayor Guliani wanted to sell the UN building as a means of raising funds for New York)

Not something Rudy could actually do since:

Source: Information pages for visitors to NY
United Nations Headquarters. Officially an "international zone," not part of the United States, the U.N. Headquarters is a working symbol of global cooperation. The 18-acre riverside tract, now lustily landscaped, was bought and donated by oil magnate John D. Rockefeller Jr. in 1946.
But US oposition to the UN is not a new thing, no. The US prefers international law and order to be decided by the US, or at least to not apply to the US if it isn't. An understandable position, but hardly beneficial to international cooperation.



Teh UN is not a democracy. Certain countries have been given favorable status and powers.

True. It's a compromise solution.


Imagine if the US goverment ran this way. "Sorry the bill cant become a law cause North Dakota vetoed".
I thought it did run that way. Or at least that federal laws were limited in which areas they could involve. But what little information I've read speaks of a strengthening of the federal powers. Doesn't matter anyway, because there is a major difference between the US government and the UN, and that is that the UN isn't a government. It is a body for promoting peace and cooperation between nations and has no power to pass laws applying to citizens of any particular country. Its a feeble organisation because that is what it's members wanted, and still want.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by bjornart

If you're not aiming for world government, which powers is it you want this new body to have that the UN doesn't have or shouldn't have?

And would India qualify? (Not a particularly relevant question, I know, but the nuclear stand off with Pakistan makes me a bit at unease with the idea of votes based on population. :-D)

I would have the organization perform essentially the same tasks as the UN, only in my organization, Libya wouldn't chair the Commission on Human Rights because Libya wouldn't qualify to be in the organization.

India would qualify as far as I'm concerned. I didn't suggest votes based on population, although I believe the UN should eventually get there. (after the other reforms I'm interested in occur)

Originally posted by bjornart
What were the actual positions? Not counting the slaves vs. counting the slaves and adding that voting power to their masters? Or...?

The non-slaveholding north wanted to leave slaves out of the calculation for proportional representation. The slaveholding south wanted to count slaves for that calculation.

3/5 was where the negotiations ended. The missing 2/5 denied the slaveholders power in the Congress, power to elect the president (thus to appoint Supreme Court justices) and was, in my mind, a good thing.

In the same way that denying Kim Jong Il an entire country's worth of say in the UN (or whatever body) would be a good thing.

MattJ

[bjornart]

We're almost in agreement then. Except I think the UN is the best option, and you don't. :D
In my opinion the basic problem for the UN isn't the memberships of tyrannies. It's the western powers' refusal to participate fully, even though they have been dealt the extra cards of permanent positions on the Security Council and vetos.
I think your hypothetical body would be likewise crippled or not come into existence. And when it did it would have the same problems, without the benefits of inclusiveness when it came to dealing with actual efforts to 'detyrannise' the world.

[My Final Spider]

Okay. A question:

I would have the organization perform essentially the same tasks as the UN, only in my organization, Libya wouldn't chair the Commission on Human Rights because Libya wouldn't qualify to be in the organization.

If you wouldn't allow dicatorships into your organization, why should dictatorships care what your organization says or does?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by My Final Spider
Okay. A question:


If you wouldn't allow dicatorships into your organization, why should dictatorships care what your organization says or does?

The same reason(s) non-members of the EU care what it says and does.

[a_unique_person]

If you want a more eloquent answer

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/14/1047583707551.html



Measured by polls, set against and contrasted with the positions of governments, it has dramatically altered the terms in which the debate over Iraq has been conducted, taking both advocates and opponents of military action into new territory. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has often touched on the idea that in some sense the members of the Security Council should see themselves as representing peoples as well as governments. Perhaps for the first time, certainly in a coherent way, members of the council have argued on behalf of peoples, using opinion polls as would-be clinching arguments outside the chamber.

"If you think of the Security Council as a vehicle for expressing global public opinion," says Professor Anne-Marie Slaughter of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton, "you can see its effect in forcing the US to take more time and trouble and make a much more public case for what it wanted to do than it otherwise would have done." The UN debate has not only focused world public opinion, but has given American public opinion a larger role. The polls that showed American distaste for action without allies, and that showed Americans as seeing allied assent or dissent as being expressed mainly within the UN, have had an important effect. The figures may be weakening, as war nears, but they still show many Americans uneasy about an intervention of which a global majority seems to disapprove.