What is the purpose of the UN

[999tigger 10]

The purpose of the Useless Nations is to stand by and watch.

 

They cant do anything without the co operation and will of the members.

 

What would your alternative be and how would it work?

[retep 68]

They cant do anything without the co operation and will of the members.

 

What would your alternative be and how would it work?

 

Give them all a chair, no point in standing.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Considering all the worlds democracies are members

Is Switzerland?

[glennpickard 10]

The UN has not worked so well, and neither did its predecessor, the League. Nearly 100 years of failure.

What is the alternative everyone asks. There has to be something that works. I will call this WFPO (working for peace organisation) for now

 

What would it be required to do, apart from all the free speech, assembly, voting for all etc ?

It is obvious to most that the US cannot move alone anymore, trying to Sheriff the world. Others have to step up and the US has to accept joint authorities. They need solid partners for three things:

 

1) diplomacy

2) a constant budget

3) an enforcement program

 

Somewhat like NATO which was and is successful. NATO is strategic and would stay in place. This WFPO plan is much more tactical but its primary use would be to steer countries into negotiations. It would be a smallish group, designed to think quickly, jointly, analyse developments and present solutions.

 

Example, to start up, WFPO base members: the US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy, Holland, South Korea, Japan, Australia, India, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Turkey, Egypt and Israel. Too big and unwieldy ?

 

Others to be invited to join at a time of the base members choosing. It would need to be determined where the UN would go and its use if this idea met with general approval

 

A country must be a democracy, a "Political council" would be seconded from the member countries. A "Joint chiefs" (most borrowed from the member countries)would be set to co-ordinate and enforce with action, positions taken.

 

Say a 63% majority to move forward on major issues. I am thinking about decision making and actions in Syria, Iraq and Afganistan, Georgia etc over the past ten years. Only thing we have to show for it is hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and homeless refugees. We have an F mark for most of this.

 

This base group would determine action to be taken, including solutions, refugees, sanctions, trade, food/medical/housing aid (the UN might fit in here), and enforcement when all else has failed.

 

The plan being that all members pay and all have a say, and there are no "Lone rangers." This is essentially how Fascism was beaten in WW2.

 

Any one else have any thoughts ?

 

Obviously everything is arbitrary and subject to much more analysis, but is the general plan doable given today's state of the world?

 

I would ask any cynics to just be constructive.