Pages: 1

 

2008-09-14 01:07:42
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|7069
As I see it world organizations with the UN especially in mind are in need of some serious change with the new economic giants that have recently emerged. I'd even go as far to say that they are in need of an "extreme make-over" to conform to the current times.

For an example let's look at the G8:

United Kingdom
Italy
United States
Canada
Japan
France
Germany
Russia

It seems this group has is seriously lacking in members. China, the new booming economic power, is not represented. No arab countries who control over half of the world's oil supplies are not represented which obviously is rediculous considering they more or less have a huge impact on the world economy. No member from a developing country is represented. I'd be all for an emerging African country having more say in world issues and development because it impacts them more than any other....and Italy...why the hell do Italy still hold a place in the G7 taking into account their current corrupt media controlling government and their serious decline in political influence. I'm sure organizations like the G7 would perform better with fresh perspectives and ideas from countries who now have an actual influence and do not just remain members because of what happened a few decades ago.

The UN security council also lacks fresh perspective. There are now five permanent members: Russia, UK, US, China and France.
Although they have tried to adapt with the ongoing change in the world with the introduction of non-permanent members I see it as a little rediculous that these are the only members that have the right to a veto.

Obviously change would be tough and back when these leading organizations were established they did have the benefit of starting fresh after the mass destruction of WWII. However, I believe that to scrap this hierarchy that has evolved change is needed to conform with current times. This, imo, would benefit global development and initiate change in the parts of the world where it is now desperately needed.

Discuss, disagree with me, do what ever you want with this thread..I'm curious to see what you guys think.

Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2008-09-14 10:32:09)

2008-09-14 07:36:37
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6948|Global Command
Good thread subject.
2008-09-14 07:56:14
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7040|London, England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8%2B5

This sounds more right. The world is changing quite alot, all these old Cold War era institutions should be changing quite alot soon. Even NATO is bollocks.
2008-09-14 09:51:05
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|7069

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8%2B5

This sounds more right. The world is changing quite alot, all these old Cold War era institutions should be changing quite alot soon. Even NATO is bollocks.
About time tbh..
2008-09-14 09:59:52
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7109|Tampa Bay Florida
G3 -- Oceania, Eurasia, Eastasia

Thats real change we can believe in LOL
2008-09-14 10:01:33
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7126|67.222.138.85
It's the Great 8 now and it includes Russia.

Uhhhh...since when is this stuff done on merit? This is not world rankings or something, this is politics. Whoopee, someone has a higher GNP than me, that doesn't mean I have to invite them to my party.

teddy..jimmy.. wrote:

Although they have tried to adapt with the ongoing change in the world with the introduction of non-permanent members I see it as a little rediculous that these are the only members that have the right to a veto.
I mean come on. We (as a citizen of a country with veto power) won the war, we write the rules. We have zero motivation to give that power to anyone else, no matter how deserving they may be, because there is no reason for us to voluntarily give up power or murky up the political waters against our favor.

I dunno, I just had to suppress a laugh when I read this. International politics is about getting what you want, not some candy and kisses commonwealth ideal.
2008-09-14 10:18:02
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7040|London, England
The UN Security Council will more or less be forced to expand or cease to exist. I'd rather have the latter. Then again the UN is pretty useless so it's not like it matters that much.
2008-09-14 10:26:17
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7109|Tampa Bay Florida

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

The UN Security Council will more or less be forced to expand or cease to exist. I'd rather have the latter. Then again the UN is pretty useless so it's not like it matters that much.
Useless.... but necessary.
2008-09-14 10:28:56
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7126|67.222.138.85

Spearhead wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

The UN Security Council will more or less be forced to expand or cease to exist. I'd rather have the latter. Then again the UN is pretty useless so it's not like it matters that much.
Useless.... but necessary.
useless...but astoundingly useless

If it were necessary it wouldn't be useless.
2008-09-14 10:29:13
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|7069

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's the Great 8 now and it includes Russia.

Uhhhh...since when is this stuff done on merit? This is not world rankings or something, this is politics. Whoopee, someone has a higher GNP than me, that doesn't mean I have to invite them to my party.

teddy..jimmy.. wrote:

Although they have tried to adapt with the ongoing change in the world with the introduction of non-permanent members I see it as a little rediculous that these are the only members that have the right to a veto.
I mean come on. We (as a citizen of a country with veto power) won the war, we write the rules. We have zero motivation to give that power to anyone else, no matter how deserving they may be, because there is no reason for us to voluntarily give up power or murky up the political waters against our favor.

I dunno, I just had to suppress a laugh when I read this. International politics is about getting what you want, not some candy and kisses commonwealth ideal.
Well before you laugh think about it for a sec...if some kind of political harmony fails to take place then you'll have multiple camps of power forming different groups which will effectively be alliance and we may end up in the whole mess that lead on to WWI.

Teddy wrote:

I see it as a little rediculous that these are the only members that have the right to a veto.
I never said any of the existing security council members should give up their power to veto. I simply meant that more members should be given permanent security council status to avoid any division that will eventually happen.

Why be so patronizing?

Whoopee
I dunno, I just had to suppress a laugh when I read this
I just spoke my mind...you really don't have to act this way, especially being a mod.
2008-09-14 10:40:21
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7126|67.222.138.85

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Well before you laugh think about it for a sec...if some kind of political harmony fails to take place then you'll have multiple camps of power forming different groups which will effectively be alliance and we may end up in the whole mess that lead on to WWI.
No kidding. Without some sort of world political power we might have countries imposing new countries onto existing borders, or fighting proxy wars through undeveloped nations to save face, or ignore the wishes of other countries and invade wherever whenever. Oh wait.

Teddy wrote:

I never said any of the existing security council members should give up their power to veto. I simply meant that more members should be given permanent security council status to avoid any division that will eventually happen.
Giving other people power deludes your own. Adding more countries increases the chance of the council breaking up into power blocs.

teddy..jimmy.. wrote:

Why be so patronizing?

I just spoke my mind...you really don't have to act this way, especially being a mod.
You spoke your mind, I spoke my mind. The basic idea laid out in the OP is very naive.
2008-09-14 10:47:16
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7051|949

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

The UN Security Council will more or less be forced to expand or cease to exist. I'd rather have the latter. Then again the UN is pretty useless so it's not like it matters that much.
Useless.... but necessary.
useless...but astoundingly useless

If it were necessary it wouldn't be useless.
UNICEF, UNESCO, UNEP, IAEA, UNIDO, WHO, WMO...

UN isn't just a political institution.  There are so many programs it runs that are vital to global society.  Don't be so naive.

As far as new 'Global Institutions', I think we are past that stage.  What has been developing especially in the past 20 or so years is regional cooperatives like ASEAN and the OAS.  I think countries see much greater advantages in joining regional alliances (especially from an economic perspective) because it would be a more focused co-op.  Plus it gives areas such as Africa and Southeast Asia more clout by pooling resources together.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-09-14 10:54:39)

2008-09-14 10:51:02
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7126|67.222.138.85

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Useless.... but necessary.
useless...but astoundingly useless

If it were necessary it wouldn't be useless.
UNICEF, UNESCO, UNEP, IAEA, UNIDO, WHO, WMO...

UN isn't just a political institution.  There are so many programs it runs that are vital to global society.  Don't be so naive.
Those have nothing to do with the ideas in the original post, and do not really have to do with the idea of a global society either. There are and will always be international aid organizations, at least partially funded by various countries, but they are a political non-issue.

You can't make an international organization without approval of the mighty UN? No love for the Red Cross's of the world?
2008-09-14 11:00:24
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7051|949

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

useless...but astoundingly useless

If it were necessary it wouldn't be useless.
UNICEF, UNESCO, UNEP, IAEA, UNIDO, WHO, WMO...

UN isn't just a political institution.  There are so many programs it runs that are vital to global society.  Don't be so naive.
Those have nothing to do with the ideas in the original post, and do not really have to do with the idea of a global society either. There are and will always be international aid organizations, at least partially funded by various countries, but they are a political non-issue.
You said the UN was useless, I am pointing out that it isn't.  Those do have very much to do with a global society - IAEA is in the middle of arbitration with Iran over uranium enrichment, much of it due to prodding by the EU and US.  That sounds like something a UN-sponsored program is doing for global society that has much to do with politics, right?

Flaming_Maniac- wrote:

You can't make an international organization without approval of the mighty UN? No love for the Red Cross's of the world?
What in my post would lead you to believe I made that argument?

It seems like you have this simplistic view of the UN as just the General Assembly and Security Council where all they do is vote on sanctions and resolutions, when that isn't the case.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-09-14 11:01:28)

2008-09-14 11:06:29
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7126|67.222.138.85

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You said the UN was useless, I am pointing out that it isn't.  Those do have very much to do with a global society - IAEA is in the middle of arbitration with Iran over uranium enrichment, much of it due to prodding by the EU and US.  That sounds like something a UN-sponsored program is doing for global society that has much to do with politics, right?
So it's not really the UN doing it, it's the EU and the US acting under the guise of the UN. Why the go-between?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac- wrote:

You can't make an international organization without approval of the mighty UN? No love for the Red Cross's of the world?
What in my post would lead you to believe I made that argument?

It seems like you have this simplistic view of the UN as just the General Assembly and Security Council where all they do is vote on sanctions and resolutions, when that isn't the case.
When you are using non-political organizations to make a case for the usefulness of the U.N. It is first and foremost a political organization, and to those ends it is an utter failure. Not everything that has come of it is bad, but most of those decent organizations would have sprung up anyways, UN or no.
2008-09-14 11:12:05
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|7069

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

Well before you laugh think about it for a sec...if some kind of political harmony fails to take place then you'll have multiple camps of power forming different groups which will effectively be alliance and we may end up in the whole mess that lead on to WWI.
No kidding. Without some sort of world political power we might have countries imposing new countries onto existing borders, or fighting proxy wars through undeveloped nations to save face, or ignore the wishes of other countries and invade wherever whenever. Oh wait.

Teddy wrote:

I never said any of the existing security council members should give up their power to veto. I simply meant that more members should be given permanent security council status to avoid any division that will eventually happen.
Giving other people power deludes your own. Adding more countries increases the chance of the council breaking up into power blocs.

teddy..jimmy.. wrote:

Why be so patronizing?

I just spoke my mind...you really don't have to act this way, especially being a mod.
You spoke your mind, I spoke my mind. The basic idea laid out in the OP is very naive.
I think you're being a little naive tbh. Yes, I agree that the existing powers who hold the most power did "earn" it through winning the war. I also agree that they should not be removed from their position of power. I do, however, think that you forget that there is A LOT of power that lies outside the members of this very secluded community that we are talking about. The security council will have to expand in the future or the whole UN will be made useless because these said countries will not take it at all seriously.

Yes, it may delude your own power but it's going to have to be shared out one of these days. In the future economically stronger countries will be sick of being governed by the likes of France or Germany.

Believe it or not, an introduction of more members may actually benefit the current global situation.. My personal opinion is that member countries of Africa should be given a larger responsibility because they are experiencing hardships first hand and surely they have valid opinions and solutions that should be addressed. Look at what the fertilizer company Yara is doing in Uganda and Tanzania. They are bringing in more native Africans to manage their African development plan and it's working better than ever. Get this going on a larger scale with the introduction of, for example South Africa, in the Global Summit group some serious changes may potentially occur.

Change will have to happen at some point Maniac..it's necessary believe it or not.
2008-09-14 11:28:46
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7126|67.222.138.85

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

I think you're being a little naive tbh. Yes, I agree that the existing powers who hold the most power did "earn" it through winning the war. I also agree that they should not be removed from their position of power. I do, however, think that you forget that there is A LOT of power that lies outside the members of this very secluded community that we are talking about. The security council will have to expand in the future or the whole UN will be made useless because these said countries will not take it at all seriously.

Yes, it may delude your own power but it's going to have to be shared out one of these days. In the future economically stronger countries will be sick of being governed by the likes of France or Germany.

Believe it or not, an introduction of more members may actually benefit the current global situation.. My personal opinion is that member countries of Africa should be given a larger responsibility because they are experiencing hardships first hand and surely they have valid opinions and solutions that should be addressed. Look at what the fertilizer company Yara is doing in Uganda and Tanzania. They are bringing in more native Africans to manage their African development plan and it's working better than ever. Get this going on a larger scale with the introduction of, for example South Africa, in the Global Summit group some serious changes may potentially occur.

Change will have to happen at some point Maniac..it's necessary believe it or not.
Right. There are no countries that have both a significant military and the economy to back it up that could even come close to threatening the UN that do not already hold a major role. Even if there was, then giving them power inside the UN does not change their true political influence, at best the appeasement buys a little bit of time. If a country gains that much power they can do whatever they want and forge whatever alliances they want, the UN is still just as useless.

What do you think the G8 does? You think they make international law that must be abided by by developing countries? The U.N. rules no one. At most it can impose non-binding agreements, ohhhh, scary.

Again, because a party is more influenced by a decision does not mean they get more of a say in the matter. Nobody cares how big of a slice of the pie you get, they care about how big of a slice I get. Trying to be the nice guy that makes it all fair for everyone is the quickest way to get screwed over.
2008-09-14 11:41:09
Beduin
Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid
+510|6169|شمال
Welcome to the real world.
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
2008-09-14 11:55:20
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|7069

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

I think you're being a little naive tbh. Yes, I agree that the existing powers who hold the most power did "earn" it through winning the war. I also agree that they should not be removed from their position of power. I do, however, think that you forget that there is A LOT of power that lies outside the members of this very secluded community that we are talking about. The security council will have to expand in the future or the whole UN will be made useless because these said countries will not take it at all seriously.

Yes, it may delude your own power but it's going to have to be shared out one of these days. In the future economically stronger countries will be sick of being governed by the likes of France or Germany.

Believe it or not, an introduction of more members may actually benefit the current global situation.. My personal opinion is that member countries of Africa should be given a larger responsibility because they are experiencing hardships first hand and surely they have valid opinions and solutions that should be addressed. Look at what the fertilizer company Yara is doing in Uganda and Tanzania. They are bringing in more native Africans to manage their African development plan and it's working better than ever. Get this going on a larger scale with the introduction of, for example South Africa, in the Global Summit group some serious changes may potentially occur.

Change will have to happen at some point Maniac..it's necessary believe it or not.
Right. There are no countries that have both a significant military and the economy to back it up that could even come close to threatening the UN that do not already hold a major role. Even if there was, then giving them power inside the UN does not change their true political influence, at best the appeasement buys a little bit of time. If a country gains that much power they can do whatever they want and forge whatever alliances they want, the UN is still just as useless.

What do you think the G8 does? You think they make international law that must be abided by by developing countries? The U.N. rules no one. At most it can impose non-binding agreements, ohhhh, scary.

Again, because a party is more influenced by a decision does not mean they get more of a say in the matter. Nobody cares how big of a slice of the pie you get, they care about how big of a slice I get. Trying to be the nice guy that makes it all fair for everyone is the quickest way to get screwed over.
The whole emirates region could stop their exports of oil and gas. That's bloody threatening if you ask me. Them not being given extended power could potentially change their political influence. By being admitted they might feel a greater responsibility to the global community. Good could come from it as opposed to pure resentment as a result of their exclusion.
The whole point of the UN is that it is supposed to be a global organization. How global would it be if an opposing organization was made simply in retaliation of not being properly included or given a greater responsibility. What I'm saying is that leading bodies like the Security Council should conform to the current change..whether it can happen is a different story. I don't see why you wouldn't agree with me tbh.

The G8 do not only introduce legislation and statutes. They also discuss environmental/development issues. You seem to be missing my point completely. I'm talking about including African countries to help with their development. They can't do it by themselves and by being included in the G8 they'll gain more influence as to what kind of things should be done to improve their agricultural, political, etc situation.

Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2008-09-14 11:59:33)

2008-09-14 11:59:53
jord
Member
+2,382|7097|The North, beyond the wall.
Living in one of the 8 countries I say leave it. Helping other countries grow as strong or stronger to these 8 stable powers is only a bad thing. Do you really want a unified middle East as a power?
2008-09-14 12:11:42
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7126|67.222.138.85

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

The whole emirates region could stop their exports of oil and gas. That's bloody threatening if you ask me. Them not being given extended power could potentially change their political influence. By being admitted they might feel a greater responsibility to the global community. Good could come from it as opposed to pure resentment as a result of their exclusion.

The whole point of the UN is that it is supposed to be a global organization. How global would it be if an opposing organization was made simply in retaliation of not being properly included or given a greater responsibility. What I'm saying is that leading bodies like the Security Council should conform to the current change..whether it can happen is a different story. I don't see why you wouldn't agree with me tbh.

The G8 do not only introduce legislation and statutes. They also discuss environmental/development issues. You seem to be missing my point completely. I'm talking about including African countries to help with their development. They can't do it by themselves and by being included in the G8 they'll gain more influence as to what kind of things should be done to improve their agricultural, political, etc situation.
Why would they stop exporting their resources? So instead of getting money for them they could get tens of hundreds of pounds of bombs dropped on them? Putting them in the G8 wouldn't change anything anyways, the fact remains they hold the natural resources and we hold the superior military, and the price is a balance game of them making the price as high as possible without evoking an aggressive response.

You're saying power in the U.N. should be given out like a scorecard, which is utterly useless. Why do you need someone else to tell you how powerful you are? The entire point is for the nations who made it to make it advantageous as possible to themselves while making it fair enough to get enough nations behind it to justify it. Countries are looking to get an edge, not an even playing field.

They discuss and do nothing about them. All it is is countries like the U.S. getting representatives up there and holding a straight face as we tell the world we are committed to reducing carbon dioxide emissions while the people in charge are laughing their asses off behind the scenes. It's all talk, and at the end of the day worthless.
2008-09-14 12:21:25
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6942|...

G1: Earth /thread
2008-09-14 12:22:15
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7126|67.222.138.85

jsnipy wrote:

G1: Earth /thread
year 4008 A.D.
2008-09-14 12:29:09
God Save the Queen
Banned
+628|6763|tropical regions of london
russia needs to get the boot

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard