What would the world be like if the UN could enforce its resolutions?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The title pretty much says it all?

[Somebody Else]

Better...

But with people complaining about big nanny UN being in control of their lives.

[Idaho]

It can enforce it's resolutions, if they suit the US.

[Fragony]

It can enforce it's resolutions, if they suit the US.

Awwwwww just a little patience untill the yellow dragon lifts off to cast big fat fireballs against anyone who knows how to spell economy correctly.

[Ronin]

if the UN could enforce it´s resolutions AND there were no bull**** veto powers....I´d say the world would be a whole lot better off.

[InsaneApache]

if the UN could enforce it´s resolutions AND there were no bull**** veto powers....I´d say the world would be a whole lot better off.

I disagree. The problem with the UN is that most of it's constituent members are not democracies. You can't have dictatorships lording it over democracies. IMO another organisation should be promoted, one that consists of democracies only. Maybe then we might have something that would be workable. Pressure put on the non-democracies to convert, so to speak, may, in some future time be able to actually do something that really matters.

[Ronin]

I disagree. The problem with the UN is that most of it's constituent members are not democracies. You can't have dictatorships lording it over democracies. IMO another organisation should be promoted, one that consists of democracies only. Maybe then we might have something that would be workable. Pressure put on the non-democracies to convert, so to speak, may, in some future time be able to actually do something that really matters.

If you look at the UN you´ll see that dictatorships are in the minority....so there is no way they would be able to impose their will over others in the UN.....appointments to special groups like human rights and such would have to take into the account the behavior of the country of course.

In my view what drags the UN more than anything else is the Veto power some countries have....as long as some countries can do anything they want because they have a veto power or because they are buddies with a veto power country the place will never work correctly.

[Geoffrey S]

Chaotic. Such power to the UN as a whole would be to the detriment of such nations as the US and China, who would never allow such a situation.

Anyway, UN is all countries, not a seperate entity as is often implied. If there were consensus resolutions could be enforced. Problem is getting nations to agree to any one resolution, and even then if the UN will actually enforce it or not. More powerful countries can easily dominate the UN, and as I said they would never allow such a situation where they must do what the UN as a whole wants them to do.

Good to see you back, Gawain.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Gawain is, as always, good for a laugh.


A UN that could enforce its resolutions would be in a bit of a muddle, since the Security Council and the General Assembly often vote quite differently and the veto powers would still have undue influence/ability to be intransigent. Still, a few things would be handled better -- cease fire blue hat zones and the like.

Were the veto removed and the UN given power to enforce its resolutions, we would see virtually all nations brought over, at least in practice, to social-democratic governments within a generation. The attempt would be made to re-cast most in a model approximating those in Scandanavia.

I don't think that would work, but it would be tried.

[Don Corleone]

It can enforce it's resolutions, if they suit the US.

As far as I know, it suited the US just fine to enforce 1559 but it wasn't. The UN had a dozen resolutions against Saddam Hussein but none of them were enforced.

[Ice]

If you look at the UN you´ll see that dictatorships are in the minority....so there is no way they would be able to impose their will over others in the UN.....appointments to special groups like human rights and such would have to take into the account the behavior of the country of course.

So 2/5 of the permenant UN security council doesn't consist of dictatorships?

[Don Corleone]

Come on Ice. Everyone knows China is a freer democracy then the United States of Oppression. Just ask any European lefty, they'll tell ya. And poor misunderstood Vladmir Putin. He's just trying to get the mob in line. He'll turn power back over once he does, he even said so.

[Don Corleone]

To answer the original post, I think it would be a bizarre world as the UN at times passes seemingly contradictory resolutions to appease it's members (just go back and re-read what the official stance on Rwanda does during that whole mess).

Whether the member states are ruled by democratically elected leaders or not is irrelevant. Nobody sitting in the UN was elected to be there, so in and of itself, the UN is decidedly anti-democratic. They're all appointees, which, as a world government, makes the UN an oligarchy, and as they're all pretty wealthy guys, a platocracy at that.

[InsaneApache]

I wonder if they have any vacancies?....

[L'Impresario]

Nobody sitting in the UN was elected to be there, so in and of itself, the UN is decidedly anti-democratic. They're all appointees, which, as a world government, makes the UN an oligarchy, and as they're all pretty wealthy guys, a platocracy at that.

So, you imply that "they" are policy makers?
In the same spirit, WTO, the World Bank Group, IMF, NATO, ASEAN and pretty much every organisation that requires countries to have permanent representatives is a terrrible oligarchy and an affront to democracy.

[Don Corleone]

So, you imply that "they" are policy makers?
In the same spirit, WTO, the World Bank Group, IMF, NATO, ASEAN and pretty much every organisation that requires countries to have permanent representatives is a terrrible oligarchy and an affront to democracy.

Preach on brother. I'm no fan of any of those organizations.

[L'Impresario]

Then better start a new party and oust your government, because I'm not quite sure if any politician would allow voting for civil servants.

[Don Corleone]

Then better start a new party and oust your government, because I'm not quite sure if any politician would allow voting for civil servants.

I voted for my elected officials, and if they appoint beauracrats that do a lousy job, I can have them removed. Would you kindly explain to me how to remove ANYONE in any position, leadership or beauracratic, at the UN?

What's more, my government appointing civil servants does not challenge the sovereignty of my country. The UN and other international quasi-governing bodies do.

[L'Impresario]

Sorry to say so, but I 've lost you heh

I don't think there's a nationality called UNese.

[Ronin]

So 2/5 of the permenant UN security council doesn't consist of dictatorships?

if you think that 2/5 are a majority then I suggest you go back to the math books.....and anyway...the correct value would be 1/5.....I´m not seeing were you are getting the 2nd dictatorship from.

[Don Corleone]

if you think that 2/5 are a majority then I suggest you go back to the math books.....and anyway...the correct value would be 1/5.....I´m not seeing were you are getting the 2nd dictatorship from.

Your point being that the US is the only dictatorship on the security council I suppose? Never miss a step, do you Ronin.

[Ronin]

Your point being that the US is the only dictatorship on the security council I suppose? Never miss a step, do you Ronin.

I was thinking of China.....

but I can throw in a a Bush joke just to keep up apperances if you want old pal

[Ice]

if you think that 2/5 are a majority then I suggest you go back to the math books.....and anyway...the correct value would be 1/5.....I´m not seeing were you are getting the 2nd dictatorship from.

I didnt mean the majority, I just meant a good number were. 40% of the security council being dictatorships isn't very good. Where do you think I'm getting the second dictatorship from? Just take a shot in the dark and tell me.

[AntiochusIII]

I think the you/he means Russia, Putin's little Empire. Technically Democracy, but anyone who ever visits the internet knows it's a crook-hole and mob-Empire after the Soviet hierarchy fell apart. Unless somebody actually liked Yeltsin. Much like Dicken's portrayal of the French Revolution, it's one oppressor after another.

The worst thing ever happened to the UN was the Security Council. A terrible, terrible legacy of World War II. If they really, really want to maintain that tarnished institution Japan and Germany ought to replace Russia and China, especially considering the magnitude of their contribution, Russia and China giving squat to the UN financially anyway; and, from my own viewpoint, the moderation of modern Democratic systems (though Japan's not exactly one--what's with the one party domination and all--it's moderated enough with the massive population of bourgeoisie, Japanese-style, that dominates the country). But noo... they lost World War II, so they aren't gonna get one. It's sixty years past, people!

Not to mention designating five World Leaders like that, with power to go with it, in direct competition against each other, isn't a wise policy to maintain something of a stable geopolitical force, unless you really, really want to accept oligarchy in its true form, monopolizing, bullying, and all that.

I mean, just look at the North Korean conflict right now: you'll see China and Russia bluffing off with their petty veto powers, playing power games and endangering the region, instead of carrying an effective containment measure against that crazy Korean fool.

Of course, UN-haters, at least those kinds which sought to have no international organization equivalent of the UN to be existing, are just isolationist dreamers, ignoring the reality of world politics safe in their shells. Perhaps, I don't know, trusting in his own country's firepower?

By the way, Don Corleone, why do you hate ASEAN?

[Louis VI the Fat]

if the UN could enforce it´s resolutions AND there were no bull**** veto powers....I´d say the world would be a whole lot better off.

There's only a veto power system in the security council, not in any of the other UN institutions.

There is nothing wrong with a veto system in itself. The reasoning behind it is very logical - there's no point in a resolution if a major power refuses to abide by it. A preventive veto system merely acknowledges reality.

[Ronin]

I didnt mean the majority, I just meant a good number were. 40% of the security council being dictatorships isn't very good. Where do you think I'm getting the second dictatorship from? Just take a shot in the dark and tell me.

I guess you´re implying that it´s Russia.......with the way it delt with some situations with extreme force like the theater and school episoded.....passing new laws that restrict public liberties to fight terrorism.....


But I don´t know....judging by the way the US has been behaving lately...the 2000 election....guantanamo......using terrorist events to retrict public liberties....


hell I give up! can we just flip a coin between the 2 to decide?


the only one I would categorize as a dictatorship in the group is china....those guys don´t even pretend to be something else.

[Ice]

The worst thing ever happened to the UN was the Security Council. A terrible, terrible legacy of World War II. If they really, really want to maintain that tarnished institution Japan and Germany ought to replace Russia and China, especially considering the magnitude of their contribution, Russia and China giving squat to the UN financially anyway; and, from my own viewpoint, the moderation of modern Democratic systems (though Japan's not exactly one--what's with the one party domination and all--it's moderated enough with the massive population of bourgeoisie, Japanese-style, that dominates the country). But noo... they lost World War II, so they aren't gonna get one. It's sixty years past, people!

I agree. I thought about it and I also think those two powers would be best suited for the job.

[Ice]

I guess you´re implying that it´s Russia.......with the way it delt with some situations with extreme force like the theater and school episoded.....passing new laws that restrict public liberties to fight terrorism.....


But I don´t know....judging by the way the US has been behaving lately...the 2000 election....guantanamo......using terrorist events to retrict public liberties....


hell I give up! can we just flip a coin between the 2 to decide?


the only one I would categorize as a dictatorship in the group is china....those guys don´t even pretend to be something else.

Oh boy, we are now comparing Russia and the US, saying that they both are equally horrible dictatorships. I only have one thing to say to you. Get a clue, buddy.

[Kralizec]

I disagree. The problem with the UN is that most of it's constituent members are not democracies. You can't have dictatorships lording it over democracies. IMO another organisation should be promoted, one that consists of democracies only. Maybe then we might have something that would be workable. Pressure put on the non-democracies to convert, so to speak, may, in some future time be able to actually do something that really matters.

The UN is obviously a product of its time, wich required a forum of sorts to deal with international disputes peacefully (among other goals)
Simply not recognising authoritarian countries would have been counterproductive, the Soviet Union being so powerful at the time. Even now it's simply a reality that we have to deal with dictatures diplomacticly, since replacing all with democracies is not a viable option. We can see that now with the Iraqi insurgency- it's perhaps to premature to tell with certainty that the whole democratization has failed, but doing that with every dictature on the planet is obviously an impossibility.

I'll say this once: I don't really like the UN myself. I like the idealist vision behind it, but the reality is sadly lacking.

[Don Corleone]

Well, to be fair to Ronin, I did plant the seed, though I really thought he was cheekily referring to them.

Ronin, I suggest you take a look at what's happened in Russia with Gazprom and how Putin has 'encouraged' those in the Russian media to portray his administration in the best possible light. Last I heard, despite it's unfavorable coverage throughout his presidency, Bush hadn't imprisoned Les Moonves (owner of CBS news)