What do you think of United Nations must the organization be transformed?

Question

I MEAN MORE PERMANENT MEMBERS IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL BRAZIL,INDIA,JAPAN,MEXICO,EGYPT

MORE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES OF UN ARABIC,PORTUGUESE,HINDI,RUSSIAN,SPANISH,... INDONESIAN MALAY

MORE ACTIVITY TO SOLVE WORLD PROBLEMS

Answer 1

Hi,

I have worked under the UN and in many countries where they have a large presence, when you get people from the UN to talk honestly most admit if it was a company it would be broke in a month, they work there for the money and the benefits and that it makes them feel good.

The idea was sound when it started but the burocrates have taken it over, the most effective thing they do is have meetings, they have a lot of blood on there hands due to miss management and should be looked at as a good try that didn't work.

The veto power (to the countries giving the most money) shows that when push comes to shove countries will always look after there own personal nations interests first, basic.

Again, I have worked for them and would never do so again, I believe in getting the job done, not endlessly talking about it while you get ridicules per diems and stay in the best hotels.

It will never work and should be scrapped not justified and enlarged

Answer 2

I think the United Nations is one of the most corrupt organizations ,that hs been in desperate need of change for years.Really what world problems have they solved? How many times have they refused to go in some place because its to dangerous??

Answer 3

As to Indonesian according to some Indonesia could use reform and also has a problem with Human rights attacks by The Indonesian army against East Timorese.  Thousands dead. For plain citizens to participate is another matter. South American Countries like Venezuela as well if this the answer sought.

Yes more activity to solve world problems. Citizens making their own currency could help right there. With Trades Person Currency everyone more secure. Laser Printers and computing tech to replace guns and bombs. Also Corporate Power through elections as Corporations require as much reform as The UN.

Answer 4

The UN Works. The USA needs to be reformed, learn to work with others.

I would say that NO nation should have permanent status on the Security Council, unless all member nations have permanent status. And NO member of the Security Council should have Veto Rights...

If the General Assembly has the power to form the Security Council, assign special member status and remove permanent members if they vote to, I wonder how the USA has been able to retain its seat with Veto powers, blocking any attempt at mid-east peace, denying people's rights, against the will of the vast majorities.

It's the reason many Americans hate the UN, thinking it needs to be reformed, because the USA tramples all over it thinking they own it, and don't like it when they get shot down, then use their veto to ruin everything they oppose.

Answer 5

I do think that a few more countries should be in the security council. What should be changed is the "vetoes". There shouldn't be any vetoes in the decision making process in the security council. Nobody should have a veto. Vetoes make the whole process useless and unfair.

Answer 6

Composition of the Security Council.

There is no doublt that the United Nations needs to be reformed in many ways, and that membership of the Security  Council is at or near the top of the list.

The coutries you memtioned are prime condidates for consideration when the time comes.

However, the big problem is TIMING.

A few months ago a very concerted effort was made to get some of these states included. One proposal was that France and UK share one veto instead of having one each. No agreement could be made on which of the other major nations should be included.

A proposal, that I would favour, is having each major area of the world like the EU, NAFTA, the African Union as Security Council members, and individulal countries taking turns at sitting on the council.

This would be an insurmantable job, getting agreement on the composition of these conglomerates, and deciding on the proportionality of the voting system. Easier to just sellect indivitual large states, as was tried above.

In the long run I think it would have to be based on blocks, and the accompanying difficlties would be ironed out after a lenthy negotiation process, probably lasting decades.

A very high former officail with the UN addressed our UN  Association in Oxford recently, and thought that after the extremely unsucessful attempts of last year we should hold off for a year or two, let the dust settle, and then try again.

Let's face it, - we're not likely to get the best logical solution to this problem. I will be based on the amount of clout that the major players exert.

Regarding the other respondees to your question, I agree with the one about the veto being the important thing. But I strongly disagree with the other, that the UN is extremely currupt.

I've noticed from these columns that a large number of Americans are against the United Nation, (mainly for ilogical reasons, or lack of knowledge.)

In the long run, the United Nations is the only thing we have to prevent strife in the world, and to get nations cooperating together. So we should support the United Nations all we can, and tackle its imperfections in a calm but forcible way. Join your local UN Association chapter!