U.N. Reforms

[Emperor_Mike]

It's a topic that has come up numerous times in the past and this is one issue that has many followers the world over. Some of us clearly see the benefits of creating a strong, centralised global governing body capable of upholding and enforcing international law without compromising national identity. Others view this development (which is all but inevitable, in my opinion) to be a threat to self determination.

Discuss, for the sake of discussing, your views on the United Nations consolidating other global organisations like the WTO, the IMF, the BIS, and the OECD into one entity capable of dealing with the rampant absurdity in this world of ours that is famine, pestilence, and war.

[VV o n g B a]

ahh, if only wylin were still here. but of course, he's a banned mofo. :D

this topic has too many hypotheticals. but its fun. so anyways, i'm all for it. it just makes sense that there ought to be an organization that does for political disputes what the WTO does for economic ones. the reallocation of resources from the military to basic sciences, research and gov't services could create a new golden age. or even lower taxes. wow! a world congress with two houses whose members are elected by different regions, and a president or CEO elected by the entire world would be great. need for the massive array of military hardware would disappear b/c all local disputes would be voted on by the world body. if problems persisted, the laws would be enforced by a sort of international guard.

but i don't see it as inevitable b/c it requires that there be fewer and fewer ppl who hold the reigns of power. if nations started a process of consolidating, what would drive the final few nations to merge peacefully? there are few leaders who WANT to give up political power to someone else. catastrophic nuclear war would be the easiest way. but if that happened, there'd prolly be a lot of anarchic states b/c many nations won't have ppl enuf to police the land. everybody would lose.

and even if a one world gov't did appear, i think it would be just as likely to break up later. some ppl like to be part of a group. others don't. if in any large group a critical mass of dissenters appear, the entire group gets big problems.

the only easy way i see of getting nations to band together is science fictiony stuff. if some outside threat came and attacked earth or if ppl discovered an easy way to travel to other planets with many of them being habitable, it wouldn't take an act of god for consolidation to happen pretty quickly. i don't believe man has reached the level of development and consciousness required to accept a vision so grand without an immenent crisis.

[VV o n g B a]

i thought about it a little more. maybe it could be done outside of the UN since the US just demonstrated how little the UN matters currently. if the g8 + china decided to try to make the world safer for free trade out of self-interest, that might ultimately lead to a unified gov't. but something catastrophic would still have to happen b/c that organization doesn't have any ruling structures. maybe if the islamic street started living up to it's famed potential and started attacking everybody, then the big boys would just decide to put the smack down on the entire mid-east area. and that area is really the only place of significant dissent with regards to where the world is heading today. the anti-globalization ppl won't mean squat until they start creating real upheavals at the international meetings.

[Emperor_Mike]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Jun 24 2003, 11:58 AM
ahh, if only wylin were still here. but of course, he's a banned mofo. :D

this topic has too many hypotheticals. but its fun. so anyways, i'm all for it. it just makes sense that there ought to be an organization that does for political disputes what the WTO does for economic ones. the reallocation of resources from the military to basic sciences, research and gov't services could create a new golden age. or even lower taxes. wow! a world congress with two houses whose members are elected by different regions, and a president or CEO elected by the entire world would be great. need for the massive array of military hardware would disappear b/c all local disputes would be voted on by the world body. if problems persisted, the laws would be enforced by a sort of international guard.

but i don't see it as inevitable b/c it requires that there be fewer and fewer ppl who hold the reigns of power. if nations started a process of consolidating, what would drive the final few nations to merge peacefully? there are few leaders who WANT to give up political power to someone else. catastrophic nuclear war would be the easiest way. but if that happened, there'd prolly be a lot of anarchic states b/c many nations won't have ppl enuf to police the land. everybody would lose.

and even if a one world gov't did appear, i think it would be just as likely to break up later. some ppl like to be part of a group. others don't. if in any large group a critical mass of dissenters appear, the entire group gets big problems.

the only easy way i see of getting nations to band together is science fictiony stuff. if some outside threat came and attacked earth or if ppl discovered an easy way to travel to other planets with many of them being habitable, it wouldn't take an act of god for consolidation to happen pretty quickly. i don't believe man has reached the level of development and consciousness required to accept a vision so grand without an immenent crisis.
I'm of the opinion that type of reform must be a gradual process. In a way, we already have the groundwork for an international criminal court and that's as good a start as any, I think. Sure, we can have fast results, but as you said it would take a catastrophic war for that to happen and everything following the conflict will be perilous indeed. It can be done through conventional means but it'll take a lot of time, effort, and backroom dealings to make this political fantasy a reality.

Where's a calamitous crisis of global proportions when you need one?

[Emperor_Mike]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Jun 24 2003, 01:09 PM
i thought about it a little more. maybe it could be done outside of the UN since the US just demonstrated how little the UN matters currently. if the g8 + china decided to try to make the world safer for free trade out of self-interest, that might ultimately lead to a unified gov't. but something catastrophic would still have to happen b/c that organization doesn't have any ruling structures. maybe if the islamic street started living up to it's famed potential and started attacking everybody, then the big boys would just decide to put the smack down on the entire mid-east area. and that area is really the only place of significant dissent with regards to where the world is heading today. the anti-globalization ppl won't mean squat until they start creating real upheavals at the international meetings.
Oh, no no. The UN must take the lead, I think. There's a light of legitimacy on the United Nations and there always has been. If one of the major powers takes the initiative it'd be viewed by many as aggression and we don't want that. Well...I don't in any case. I prefer a "new" UN free from the wretched vetoing abilities of the permanent members of the Security Council. But at this juncture it doesn't seem likely China, Russia, the USA, France, and the United Kingdom will be leaving any time soon.

At this juncture. There's always tomorrow.

[ChinaLama]

i see where this is leading. emperor mike wants to be appointed UN Secretary General and use the position to take over the world!

[Emperor_Mike]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Jun 26 2003, 03:22 PM
i see where this is leading. emperor mike wants to be appointed UN Secretary General and use the position to take over the world!
Fascinating idea as that may be, I'm pro-UN largely because I see it as the only organisation (with sufficient room to maneuver) that can bring stability to Africa and the Middle East due to the fact that it's an "impartial" entity.

[kuanyin]

i think there is potential for anyhting with the UN. good and bad. I just want good to happen to those that are poor and bad to happen to the US. because the U.S. keeps f*cking up left and right.

[Emperor_Mike]

Originally posted by kuanyin@Jun 27 2003, 11:21 AM
i think there is potential for anyhting with the UN. good and bad. I just want good to happen to those that are poor and bad to happen to the US. because the U.S. keeps f*cking up left and right.
Well, to be fair, it's not the United States itself that's a blight on this world (or on the UN.) I suppose one can argue that the linger aspect of nationalism is one of the causes as to why we're all in such a miserable state right now. If only people and governments can learn to look beyond national interests and function on the Wilsonian practise of "moral" diplomacy instead.

I don't see nationalism dying out soon, however. Even if the United States, by some miracle, abandons its much-touted "patriotism" there are other nations like China and Russia, both of whom at still deeply steeped in our modern day equivalent of 19th century Realpolitik (though lesser in terms of absolute ruthlessness.)

Maybe in time humanity will awaken to the fact that we cannot survive in a world where the resurgence of Richelieuen foreign policies built on "Raison d'Etat" reigns over international relations.