The UN is undemocratic...

Originally posted by Bobla46
You'll find that many of the 25,000+ members of this site who are American would rather disempower the UN rather than bolster it.

Then America cries out that it has to be the world police as it interferes with other countries on corrupt pretenses.

Two faced. Two towers.

Hi STANG!

Originally posted by spruce112358
... but it should be.

We should elect our UN representatives directly. A condition of UN membership for any member state should be holding free and fair elections to choose a delegate. No election – no delegate.

No country should hold a veto over a UN resolution.

The powers granted to the UN by member states should be limited and spelled out: i ...[text shortened]... ers remain with the member states. A bill of rights also would not be a bad idea.

Any takers?

Who do you define as "we" to elect our UN reps directly. Do you mean we the citizens of the member states or we the government of the member states. If you are referring to the former then isn't there potential for such issues to be raised in regards to sovereign equality, political independance, domestic jurisdiction and freedom from external intervention. If you are referring to the latter then as i understand it those states who are members are there because they are "peace-loving" states and accept the obligations under the Charter of the UN.

Whilst the UN's primary purpose is to maintain international peace and security, member states just by being members, have an obligation to work together to solve international problems such as economic, social, cultural or humanitarian issues. Now we know from recent events the turnout in regards to peace and security. I'm guessing the economic, social, cultural and humanitarian issues are clouded because some member states would see all these treaties that target these problem areas as external intervention eroding their sovereign rights and impinging on domestic jurisdiction.

A Bill of Rights is a separate issue in that some states have them and some don't. Some may see that their constitution provides the protection required for their citizens for eg. Australia. The Australian constitution as i understand it has a few direct rights to its citizens but its overall character is to prevent the government from having too much power so they don't impinge on our rights, implied or expressed.

I am of the view that by having a UN they have to an extent (not always) the ability to place some pressure on member states if they are not meeting their obligations. If we don't have a UN then who is there to apply this pressure? And this is where i can see what Bobla46 is saying that even with the UN the US can be perceived as the world police. Recent submissions to UN Reforms also indicated that some states thought the UN played a world government role. Despite the fact that as member states they are their voluntarily and sign these treaties and ought to be expected that a degree of sovereignty may be surrendered.

The issue of veto amongst the five permanent members of the security council is also a difficult one because this affects the UN's capacity to respond to crises consistently and rapidly. And yeah maybe they should not hold that power but i can't see it ever being surrendered.

my thoughts anyway.

Originally posted by chrissyb
Who do you define as "we" to elect our UN reps directly. Do you mean we the citizens of the member states or we the government of the member states. If you are referring to the former then isn't there potential for such issues to be raised in regards to sovereign equality, political independance, domestic jurisdiction and freedom from external interventio ...[text shortened]... t hold that power but i can't see it ever being surrendered.

my thoughts anyway.

I would put UN Delegate right on the ballot with President, Senator, Congressman, etc. Imagine who would run -- former Presidents, elder statemen. This would not only legitimize the UN as a democratic body -- it would put pressure on non-democratic nations to give their citizens some measure of free expression.

A UN Constitution should clearly state the powers that the UN has been given by the member states -- strictly limited to issues of international security, international trade, enforcing international contracts, resolving international disputes, etc. An interpretation more limited than what has grown up around the US Federal government.

A UN Bill of Rights should affirm the rights common to human beings in any society. The reason to have this is to provide a standing justification for the UN to take action against nations that wilfully harm their own people (e.g. Sudan) Apart from this, the UN should focus on international issues, and should never interfere with an individual nation's sovereignty.