The following is the preamble to the charter of human rights adopted by the United nations in 1948.
You may want to skip reading it but I posted it as an example of the idealism of a post war(II) World. ( as a matter of interest )

In my discussions around here it seems that the United Nations is a lost cause. In that the USA seems to have lost faith in The UN's ability to act and act well. And of course the UN can not survive with out USA support.

The questions I wanted to ask and discuss are:
1. Is the UN a valid organisation and thus worth supporting?
2. If we could re-draw it's function how and in what way would we do it?
3. Can the United nations take on a more "policing" function and act in ways that are precautionary. Such as standing down a rogue government and pursuing free elections for an oppressed population?
4. Are there other questions that are worth asking?




On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Philisophically I believe the UN is Valid but needs urgent revamping

Yep, agree. Any suggestions how?

I believe that the only way to revamp the UN is to give it more authority over soveriegn nations. Brings back the old saying of DAMNED IF YOU DO, DAMNED IF YOU DON'T.....

Some short opinons, with no explanations (yet!):

1. Yes, very much so.
2. The main thing would be to give it some real enforcement powers.
3. Sounds like a good idea to me.
4. Yes.

I do think that until those soveriegn nations agree to be subordinant to international laws and pressures then this will not happen. For example I don't see the USA allowing the possibility of UN intervention on it's soveriegn soil for any reason. This I think is the biggest problem.

However when it becomes an economic necessity then maybe this will happen.

At the moment the USA is on the way to bankruptcy with it's war on terrorism.

No nation no matter how large can afford to keep chasing terrorist for ever.

Irak alone is an enourmous drain on the USA's financial state and all this could have been avoided if the UN was properly mandated.

But as I said countries like the USA would have to be prepared to sign their soveriegn integrity away to the UN. May be they have to go Bust before they will.

Is the UN a valid organisation and thus worth supporting?

Personally I think it is. However some major changes need to take place if it is to remain efficient. For example veto powers should be reconsidered and also a rotation of all members in the Security Council should also be considered. One of the main problems in the Security Council is that the States with veto power use it like a political tool. This was plainly evident during the pre-Iraq war crisis in the UN.

If we could re-draw it's function how and in what way would we do it?

If we could re-draw the UN Charter, one of the first things that must be looked at is Chapter VII. And also they should have a bit more power to enforce sanctions against States who breach the Charter, especially Chapter(s) Art 2(4) (which deals with the threat of or the use of force) and Chapter VII (which deals with the use of force and when and how and how much it can be applied). Also important is that the aspect of sovereignty be looked at to ensure that those States who do breach the Charter and the UDHR, that they cannot hide behind the shield of their State Sovereignty and face some form of sanction from the UN. And most importantly, the UN apply sanctions (be it economic or force) fairly and not just to pander the political bias' of other States (eg if a State commits a breach that is fundamental, then that State should face some form of sanction and not allow the situation to continue until the State give in. And this should apply to every State in the same way, regardless of who they are... therefore the US, UK and Australia should be facing sanctions for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq and Afghanistan for breaching international law and also the UN Charter... that's how I mean by the sanctions being assessed fairly and applying to each State). Also refer to above in regards to the Security Council and veto power.

Can the United nations take on a more "policing" function and act in ways that are precautionary. Such as standing down a rogue government and pursuing free elections for an oppressed population?

It can't really do so as there's such a thing as State Sovereignty which always comes first. They have the power to act, but to stand down a rogue Government would be a no no. While sanctions can be placed against the State in a bid to get rid of the rogue government (and only if it is voted on in the UN), the UN does not have the power to interfere with the politics of a State in such a fashion without the approval of the member States. The pursuing of free elections for an oppressed people, well it is only the people who can pursue such a thing. The UN does not have the power to enforce it's own views or political beliefs on any people or State. We must remember that the UN is not meant to be a political body. The UN can send in observers to report on whether the elections are free and we have seen such occasions when this has occured, and if the people are oppressed and forced to vote in a certain manner, again the UN may vote to enforce sanctions against the State.

As for acting in ways that are precautionary, we've seen in the past that such a notion has failed dismally, especially when we view the massacres which have taken place in Rwanda, East Timor, Kosovo, etc. They can act like a precautionary force, but to do so they are rarely allowed to use any force (except to defend themselves). This I guess is one of the major problems because too many times the UN force have had to sit by and literally watch as people were massacred in front of them and their hands were tied due to their rules of engagement.

Are there other questions that are worth asking?
There are always questions worth asking.

Basically my limited knowledge of the UN and recent events tells me that the UN needs nore power. If it could forcefully* control the actions of int member countries i believe the world could make real progress and we could stop ahving all these dam wars which basically cause nothing but trouble.

*Forcefully. By this i do not mean the US definition** but some method where the will of the democratic 'world government' could control the actions of rogue states etc. (and the USA of course)
**kill everything that moves and do what you want

my pc blew up yesterday so I'll have to wait for a better chance to respond

Basically my limited knowledge of the UN and recent events tells me that the UN needs nore power. If it could forcefully* control the actions of int member countries i believe the world could make real progress and we could stop ahving all these dam wars which basically cause nothing but trouble.

*Forcefully. By this i do not mean the US definition** but some method where the will of the democratic 'world government' could control the actions of rogue states etc. (and the USA of course)
**kill everything that moves and do what you want

I don't think any kind of control will work in the long term. Controlling ones actions, say by limit its resources etc will stop their actions now, but when the control stops, those actions will return. Just look at our history.
What I believe will work in the long run is a shift in our belief systems. Beliefs are the source of all actions. If you believe it's ok to hurt others to get the things that you want, then you will do that. Or you can believe we can achieve our goals without hurting others, our actions will match that too. Therefore, our problem right now, is not an economical one, nor it is a military problem, or a political problem, the problem is our belief. If we change our beliefs, everything will change.

I don't think that much will improve until the words global community and global peace have been defined properly.

Counties that have something to hide will always claim sovereign rights and inhibit the workings of international law. The term statehood or nation has to be redefined from a more global perspective.

A global government would have to be established and nations would become states an/or territories of a global community, not unlike our system here of federal and state governments etc. ( Australia )

A global government would have to be established and ...
A global government, hmm....over my dead body! How is that going to improve my life? Will it supposedly make me safer from "terrorists":)

I agree with that - a global government. It will make a much safer, efficient world. It will stop world hunger as wars are nolonger needed, it will make sure everyone has to basic neccessity to survive. In this case, survival is for sure, evolution will finally be a choice for everyone.

It will make a much safer, efficient world.
How & why?
It will stop world hunger as wars are nolonger needed
How? I was unaware that wars were the sole(?) cause of "world hunger":D
it will make sure everyone has to basic neccessity to survive.
The US governement does not ensure this among others so why would I believe that?
In this case, survival is for sure, evolution will finally be a choice for everyone.
How is survival ensured? What will my evolutionary choices be?

Wouldn't a global federation allow for the full implimentation of the Charter of human rights?
If this happened then your evolutionary choices would be maximised I would think.
Maybe choices that impinge on the rights of others may be restricted but hey is that such a bad thing?

Wouldn't a global federation allow for the full implimentation of the Charter of human rights?
If this happened then your evolutionary choices would be maximised I would think.
Maybe choices that impinge on the rights of others may be restricted but hey is that such a bad thing?
It would be impossible to have a global federation. One of the main reasons being that individual States will feel reluctant in relinquishing their own individual State rights to the greater 'federation'. Do you honestly see countries such as the US, China, UK, France, Germany, Isreal, etc all putting aside their individual Statehood and joining a global federation? Do you see these States giving up their rights to be in such a federation? They're finding the UN hard to cope with now as it is, they'd refuse point blank on a notion of a global federation. For such a thing to happen, you'd need to have ALL States in total agreement, and seeing that there are several States who still today do not agree with the UDHR as a whole, then you'd see that the whole notion would be impossible.

And I have to ask, which rights of others might be restricted? It could very well be that it's your rights which are impinged upon. How is it right that one set of rights takes precedent over others? Doesn't that go against the whole notion and basis of human rights? Surely you wouldn't say that the beliefs of the West is more worthwhile than others? It is at the moment impossible for all States of the world to see eye to eye on the issue of human rights because each faction have their own beliefs. There is already the issue today of some feeling that others have interfered too much as it is, by having a global federation as you're suggesting would only make the current situation much worse. The best thing to do would be to re-define international law and have an enforcement body which would apply to all States. The current system has many States refusing to sign up to the various international courts. There should be one that applies to all States in the same manner. If one fails to comply to international law, then sanctions be placed against that State. Force should only be the absolute last resort and one in which the majority of all other States would have to agree on. That would be a start anyway.

The best thing to do would be to re-define international law and have an enforcement body which would apply to all States. The current system has many States refusing to sign up to the various international courts. There should be one that applies to all States in the same manner. If one fails to comply to international law, then sanctions be placed against that State. Force should only be the absolute last resort and one in which the majority of all other States would have to agree on. That would be a start anyway
I agree.
Wouldn't a global federation allow for the full implimentation of the Charter of human rights?
If this happened then your evolutionary choices would be maximised I would think.
Maybe choices that impinge on the rights of others may be restricted but hey is that such a bad thing?
"evolutionary choices"? Judging by your post I think you mean lifestyle choices? In which case I think they would be even more restricted.

again I repeat if your choices involved the diminishment of otherpeoples choices then I would agree they would be very restricted.