Authority of the United Nations

[Draco Straybyrn]

Resolved: The United Nations should be abolished, with a new, more active and efficient organization replacing it which should have significantly more power and authority.

 

Whereas, it does no good to have a peace organization that cannot do anything.

 

Whereas, giving the UN more power could help to alleviate some of the more important problems at hand today.

 

Normal rules apply.

 

Go.

 

SELF-EDIT: Bwaaaah? I'm not allowed to have discussion to start my thread? o_O

 

The title was modified to be relevant to the debate, and therefore the discussion at the beginning of the post did not make sense so it was removed. -YCMaker

[CrabHelmet]

Currently, the UN is too weak to get anything done, and the world's countries are either too poor or too selfish to do what the UN would be doing if the UN could do what it ought to do.

 

Either give the UN some power or disband it entirely. This charade of the UN actually mattering isn't helping the world at all.

[Draco Straybyrn]

Currently' date=' the UN is too weak to get anything done, and the world's countries are either too poor or too selfish to do what the UN would be doing if the UN could do what it ought to do.

 

Either give the UN some power or disband it entirely. This charade of the UN actually mattering isn't helping the world at all.

[/quote']

 

Such is what the first post says.

[Draco Straybyrn]

in our terms UN=broken useless mod NOW

 

This is NOT serious debate. GTFO my topic. Thanks.

 

Someone counter me.

[CrabHelmet]

Even if the UN was in possession of power, they would be unable to use it effectively. In the past, the UN has never been able to respond properly to crises, even if we take the constraints on it into account. It does not act as an unbiased judge should; for example, it blames Israel for its treatment of Palestinians while leaving far greater human rights violators completely unmentioned. Many of its programs have always been rife with corruption, and granting them more power would only ensure a greater degree of corruption.

 

The entire configuration of the United Nations, especially the ridiculous makeup of its security council (including permanent membership that reflects the past instead of the present and veto power stonewalling all progress), so many changes would be necessary that giving the UN extra power would not be worthwhile. Instead, in view of its track record and unworkable structure, the UN should be abolished and replaced by a more effective organization fo greater power.

[Draco Straybyrn]

Even if the UN was in possession of power' date=' they would be unable to use it effectively. In the past, the UN has never been able to respond properly to crises, even if we take the constraints on it into account. It does not act as an unbiased judge should; for example, it blames Israel for its treatment of Palestinians while leaving far greater human rights violators completely unmentioned. Many of its programs have always been rife with corruption, and granting them more power would only ensure a greater degree of corruption.

 

The entire configuration of the United Nations, especially the ridiculous makeup of its security council (including permanent membership that reflects the past instead of the present and veto power stonewalling all progress), so many changes would be necessary that giving the UN extra power would not be worthwhile. Instead, in view of its track record and unworkable structure, the UN should be abolished and replaced by a more effective organization fo[b']r*]/b] greater power.

 

While your points may indeed be true...

 

There is also the consideration that given more power, the United Nations may take higher responsibility and make better decisions.

[CrabHelmet]

Even if the UN was in possession of power' date=' they would be unable to use it effectively. In the past, the UN has never been able to respond properly to crises, even if we take the constraints on it into account. It does not act as an unbiased judge should; for example, it blames Israel for its treatment of Palestinians while leaving far greater human rights violators completely unmentioned. Many of its programs have always been rife with corruption, and granting them more power would only ensure a greater degree of corruption.

 

The entire configuration of the United Nations, especially the ridiculous makeup of its security council (including permanent membership that reflects the past instead of the present and veto power stonewalling all progress), so many changes would be necessary that giving the UN extra power would not be worthwhile. Instead, in view of its track record and unworkable structure, the UN should be abolished and replaced by a more effective organization fo[b']r[/b] greater power.

 

While your points may indeed be true...

 

There is also the consideration that given more power, the United Nations may take higher responsibility and make better decisions.

 

The problem with its past decisions lies not in the fact that it doesn't have sufficient authority but instead in the entire direction it takes. Granting increased power to the United Nations would merely send it further down the wrong path. Wrong decisions, such as its choice of which human rights violations to censure, would not become right; they would remain wrong, but they would gain more influence, increasing their negative effects. Corruption does not disappear when power increases; on the contrary, it grows larger as the prizes become greater. For example, businesses may not be bribing the UN very much right now, since the UN can't get anything significant done, but if the UN becomes important, big business will go straight after the UN in the same way that big business does for all forms of authority.

[Draco Straybyrn]

Even if the UN was in possession of power' date=' they would be unable to use it effectively. In the past, the UN has never been able to respond properly to crises, even if we take the constraints on it into account. It does not act as an unbiased judge should; for example, it blames Israel for its treatment of Palestinians while leaving far greater human rights violators completely unmentioned. Many of its programs have always been rife with corruption, and granting them more power would only ensure a greater degree of corruption.

 

The entire configuration of the United Nations, especially the ridiculous makeup of its security council (including permanent membership that reflects the past instead of the present and veto power stonewalling all progress), so many changes would be necessary that giving the UN extra power would not be worthwhile. Instead, in view of its track record and unworkable structure, the UN should be abolished and replaced by a more effective organization fo[b']r[/b] greater power.

 

While your points may indeed be true...

 

There is also the consideration that given more power, the United Nations may take higher responsibility and make better decisions.

 

The problem with its past decisions lies not in the fact that it doesn't have sufficient authority but instead in the entire direction it takes. Granting increased power to the United Nations would merely send it further down the wrong path. Wrong decisions, such as its choice of which human rights violations to censure, would not become right; they would remain wrong, but they would gain more influence, increasing their negative effects. Corruption does not disappear when power increases; on the contrary, it grows larger as the prizes become greater. For example, businesses may not be bribing the UN very much right now, since the UN can't get anything significant done, but if the UN becomes important, big business will go straight after the UN in the same way that big business does for all forms of authority.

 

HOWEVER.

 

As the United Nations is an organization composed of the countries of the world for the greater good, surely they would not succumb to the bribery and aggrandizing of the big businesses?

 

Perhaps a reform of the United Nations should be in order, and a new version established. I'll add that to the reso.

[CrabHelmet]

Even if the UN was in possession of power' date=' they would be unable to use it effectively. In the past, the UN has never been able to respond properly to crises, even if we take the constraints on it into account. It does not act as an unbiased judge should; for example, it blames Israel for its treatment of Palestinians while leaving far greater human rights violators completely unmentioned. Many of its programs have always been rife with corruption, and granting them more power would only ensure a greater degree of corruption.

 

The entire configuration of the United Nations, especially the ridiculous makeup of its security council (including permanent membership that reflects the past instead of the present and veto power stonewalling all progress), so many changes would be necessary that giving the UN extra power would not be worthwhile. Instead, in view of its track record and unworkable structure, the UN should be abolished and replaced by a more effective organization fo[b']r[/b] greater power.

 

While your points may indeed be true...

 

There is also the consideration that given more power, the United Nations may take higher responsibility and make better decisions.

 

The problem with its past decisions lies not in the fact that it doesn't have sufficient authority but instead in the entire direction it takes. Granting increased power to the United Nations would merely send it further down the wrong path. Wrong decisions, such as its choice of which human rights violations to censure, would not become right; they would remain wrong, but they would gain more influence, increasing their negative effects. Corruption does not disappear when power increases; on the contrary, it grows larger as the prizes become greater. For example, businesses may not be bribing the UN very much right now, since the UN can't get anything significant done, but if the UN becomes important, big business will go straight after the UN in the same way that big business does for all forms of authority.

 

HOWEVER.

 

As the United Nations is an organization composed of the countries of the world for the greater good, surely they would not succumb to the bribery and aggrandizing of the big businesses?

 

Ahahaha good joke. But this is a serious debate topic.

 

Perhaps a reform of the United Nations should be in order' date=' and a new version established. I'll add that to the reso.

[/quote']

 

A complete overhaul of the UN would be equivalent to replacing it with a completely new organization, so I would support that.

 

But how do you plan to stop the problem of corruption?

[Draco Straybyrn]

Even if the UN was in possession of power' date=' they would be unable to use it effectively. In the past, the UN has never been able to respond properly to crises, even if we take the constraints on it into account. It does not act as an unbiased judge should; for example, it blames Israel for its treatment of Palestinians while leaving far greater human rights violators completely unmentioned. Many of its programs have always been rife with corruption, and granting them more power would only ensure a greater degree of corruption.

 

The entire configuration of the United Nations, especially the ridiculous makeup of its security council (including permanent membership that reflects the past instead of the present and veto power stonewalling all progress), so many changes would be necessary that giving the UN extra power would not be worthwhile. Instead, in view of its track record and unworkable structure, the UN should be abolished and replaced by a more effective organization fo[b']r[/b] greater power.

 

While your points may indeed be true...

 

There is also the consideration that given more power, the United Nations may take higher responsibility and make better decisions.

 

The problem with its past decisions lies not in the fact that it doesn't have sufficient authority but instead in the entire direction it takes. Granting increased power to the United Nations would merely send it further down the wrong path. Wrong decisions, such as its choice of which human rights violations to censure, would not become right; they would remain wrong, but they would gain more influence, increasing their negative effects. Corruption does not disappear when power increases; on the contrary, it grows larger as the prizes become greater. For example, businesses may not be bribing the UN very much right now, since the UN can't get anything significant done, but if the UN becomes important, big business will go straight after the UN in the same way that big business does for all forms of authority.

 

HOWEVER.

 

As the United Nations is an organization composed of the countries of the world for the greater good, surely they would not succumb to the bribery and aggrandizing of the big businesses?

 

Ahahaha good joke. But this is a serious debate topic.

 

Perhaps a reform of the United Nations should be in order' date=' and a new version established. I'll add that to the reso.

[/quote']

 

A complete overhaul of the UN would be equivalent to replacing it with a completely new organization, so I would support that.

 

But how do you plan to stop the problem of corruption?

 

Read new reso. This organization would be swift-acting in an effort to tackle the problems of the world and eliminate them. I'm going to guess Sweatshops and Multinational Corporations (Hereby known as MNC's) be up pretty high on the list.