Is the United Nations UNdemocratic?
By 4ftfingers
@4ftfingers (1310)
March 24, 2007 5:00pm CST
The Aims of the United Nations are to safeguard human rights, prevent war, improve living standards, promote social and economic process, provide a mechanism for international law and fight diseases.
But can these be achieved effectively in it's current state or should it be more democratic?
Important countries like Brazil, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Japan and Germany have no automatic seat within the Security Council. Britian and France on the other hand are permanent members and have veto power, for no other reason than that they were on the winning side in the Second World War.
Critics believe that the five permanent members of the Security Council (all nuclear powers) have created an exclusive club who's powers are unchecked and are only after their own interests, especially in regards to humanitarian intervention. For example, oil-rich Kuwaitis were eagerly protected in 1991, whereas there was little enthusiasm to protect resource-poor Rwandans in 1994.
Not only are there no African, Arab or Muslim seats at the top of the table, but there are no elections to the vote-wielding seats on the Security Council.
1 person likes this
6 responses
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
25 Mar 07
I'll take it one step further. I dont even recognize the existance of the u.n. as a legitamite body. It is nothing more than a glorified debate club. It has realy never done anything usefull other than the ocaisional humanitarion/relief/aid thing but there are already enough of those groups world wide. They have never been an effective peace keeper.....I'll cite lebenon as an example: they were supose to over see the disarming of hesbollah....instead they hid in bunkers for years while hezbollah ran rampant. When in such a roll, they are not allowed to use deadly force, even in self defence. I for one am tired of seeing my tax dollars fund 20 percent of their operations with no accountablity to the funders. In return for my tax dollars, i have them on my own soil openly insulting us (the host country) and allowing world leaders a stage on wich to do the same openly (like hugo chavez, and the current president of iran). Would you, if you were invited to live in someones home and have them pay 20% of your living expensess, openly insult them in their own home? try to dictate to them how to live and run their home? of course you wouldnt.
1 person likes this
@4ftfingers (1310)
•
25 Mar 07
Rightly said, no I wouldn't like to have someone in my own home slating me. And conversely, having the HQ in Manhatten has allowed the US (by it's own right) to refuse visa's to speaker such as Yassar Arafat, whom the UN General Assembly had invited to address them.
I think it would be best for all if the UN sold it's prime real estate in Manhatten and moved to Geneva in neutral Switzerland.
Also, you mentioned that the US pays over 20%, far more than any other states.
This has allowed the US to run into $1.3 bill arrears to the UN, with Congress refusing to authorise payment of the the US dues, apparently in order to force UN compliance with US wishes.
Although the US rate ceiling has already been reduced from 25% to 22% a further reduction should be given to the US assessment.
1 person likes this
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
26 Mar 07
Don't you think moving the UN out of Manhattan will make it harder for the US to deliver the checks to the UN? lol.
If the US's contribution was capped at less and less, don't you think the UN would become even more ineffectual without the man power, money, and political commitment (to certain issues) the US brings?
1 person likes this
@4ftfingers (1310)
•
27 Mar 07
It's not just down to the US for checks and balances, but it would be better if no nation had a stronger hand than others. Instead we should have an elected Security Council (in neutral Switzerland) with every part of the world guaranteed a seat at the top table. And no one country should be able to exercise a veto. Also the General Assembly should be reformed and nations represented by population.
If the US's percentage rate ceiling of the total is capped at less and less, other nations would be required to pick up the remaining contribution so no it wouldn't become more ineffectual, but more proportional. That way no one could claim the US is using it's debt to it's advantage.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
30 Mar 07
No, the UN isn't democratic and really doesn't try to be.
It's also a pathetic waste of time, real estate and paper, since nothing that comes out of there is worth the paper it's printed on.
The UN could do a lot of good in the world, but it chooses not to.
I think more people have been killed by "diplomacy" than all our wars.
1 person likes this
@tarachand (3895)
• India
11 May 07
It is money and power that rule the United Nations. If it were really and truly democratic, the number of seats for each region, the representations would depend upon the population of that region,. The UN to a very large extent is a caretaker of the interests of a few rich and powerful nations.
@Netsbridge (3253)
• United States
9 Apr 07
The United Nations (the invention of the United States of America and a not a bad idea) was actually intended as a means towards globalization, or more specifically Imperialism! I think the problem with the UN is that its originators never counted on "developing nations" to get as involved and demand equality! Like most of their covert missions towards plundering, the originators had actually believed it would be an open and shut deal! Well, ha!
In addition, 4ftfingers, the mission of the United Nations was to preserve international peace and protect the dignity of all people. Ironic, isn't it? However, I strongly believe that any forum which encourages discussions of international issues is worth been patient with. On the other hand, I believe the UN will never be effective towards its alleged mission, unless power is equally distributed among all member nations and the viewpoint of each nation is respected.
@soccermom (3198)
• United States
25 Mar 07
I think it should be more democratic, the system right now just isn't working. With the amount of money the US owes the UN we shouldn't have any seat there at all. And thank you for bringing up the Kuwait/Rwanda debate. It amazes me, the UN sees all the suffering in Sudan for example, but yet they seem to focus their resources and energy into places that are "oil rich", or have something else that is worthy. It disgusts me to be quite honest. The world is not properly represented, and I'm unsure what the point of the UN even is anymore.
@rdurusan (624)
• Philippines
26 Mar 07
Certainly its undemocratic and i think that is the reason why wars can't be stopped by the super powers.If all member nations have a vote and no nation have a veto power,many wars can be prevented through debate and then the voting for and against.In fact they are dictating the world what to think and do.Are we robots without mind of our own.
1 person likes this
