Discussion Forums for the Dialogue Paper

Conclusion: The World We Want

Thank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released.

This Forum is bilingual, and participants post messages in their language of choice.

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic

What comes after the U.N.?

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-04-12 13:23:15

Canada, as i do, should continue to emphasise that the underlying texts and laws od the UN are good. It is their implementation which seem wrong.

Canada should really try to change how the UN works, especially regarding the veto powers of the security council. Vetos should disappear - the security council should keep its permanent members and add new ones (Brazil, Germany, Japan and India come to mind), there should also be a few more non-permanent members - maybe here, as you suggest, maybe it would be a good if non-permanent would be excluded from rotation.

The Security Council should still be in my opinion the ultimate system to resolve conflicts, and take care of the security of the world.

But as stated above, even though the UN Security Council should be the ultimate body of law, i also think that the UN General Assembly should represent all nations of the world, democratic or not. The UN General Assembly should also be able to (in a 66% majority vote maybe), have the same powers as the security council.

I think this gives less power to non-democratic countries, but also still balances so that non-democratic countries still have a voice.

p.s : There are about 80 countries which are non-democratic, thats half the UN, you'd really want to isolate them? I doubt its possible.

Furthermore, what is the definition of democracy? Is Lienchtenstein (spelling?) a democracy?

Reply to this message

Show in topic

What comes after the U.N.?

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-04-13 14:40:10

Ooppps.. missing words in one of my sentences:

"..there should also be a few more non-permanent members - maybe here, as you suggest, maybe it would be a good if non-permanent would be excluded from rotation. ..."

Should read as:

"..there should also be a few more non-permanent members - maybe here, as you suggested, maybe it would be a good idea if non-permanent members which are not democracies were completely excluded from the security council... (e.g : They cannot rotate in)"

Reply to this message

What comes after the U.N.?

Contributor: fatmomma

Date: 2003-04-13 17:26:38

I agree codco. The United Nations is still our best and fairest option to handle world affairs. It is vitally important that the UN work at updating the UN make up to refect the changing world. Hopefully this failure of the UN to control this situation will be a catalyst for immediate reform. We must realize this will not happen quickly as it requires agreement from many countries with many opposing interests.
The UN should be better able to enforce their resolutions. I would like to see it be more non political and back room deals banned. Decisions should be made on their merit not because some one offers bribes or economic threats. We don't look upon that favourably in our own governments; it certainly should not be acceptable in world concerns.
The five permanent members should be changeable to reflect a changing world.
One veto should not be allowed to scuttle any resolution. All countries must pay their assessed dues. One suggestion was given that the UN be given the power to tax any military equipment produced; this would bear looking at in my view.

Reply to this message

What comes after the U.N.?

Contributor: codc01

Date: 2003-04-14 06:00:45

"All countries must pay their assessed dues. One suggestion was given that the UN be given the power to tax any military equipment produced; this would bear looking at in my view. "

I think this is a very good idea, as long as its not a way to stop military companies from selling their stuff, knowing that there are about 45 billion of US$ of military equipment exports each year - imposing a 1% tax on military equipment exports and sales within a country - i think it would bring more than 450 million US$ This is about 20% of the UN budget!!! Excellent idea - these numbers excludes also equipment to a country within that country, so i think we could add at least 250 million US$ to this number!

I got my data from this site (1999 year) (Arms Exports Section):
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18738.pdf

The UN budget is here (In French though):
http://www.onu.fr/doc/infoge/budg.htm

Reply to this message

Previous Topic | All Topics |

Start Topic | Next Topic