RSS

When considering global governance in the year 2020, there seems to be little opportunity for great changes or big developments to be undertaken in such a short period. Changes and developments need time and unfortunately, an enormous bureaucracy. The United Nations has been discussing the prospect of a change to their Security Council policies since 1979 and until now, there is still no reform. But an ever-changing world requires new ideas and structural reforms in the United Nations. New global problems and new global powers are emerging and an adequate framework is needed to integrate these powers into the global political system.

When the UN was founded in 1945 it was a peacekeeping project designed to curb military activity, particularly that of Germany and Japan. Now, more than 60 years later, Germany and Japan are the second and third leading contributors to the United Nations respectively; both have increased their global influence and power in the last few decades and both share the desire to become permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Brazil and India also share this wish, and with five countries holding all the power in the UN for the past 60 years, reform looks to many to be long overdue.

So how to solve the problem? Abolish the United Nations Security Council? Well, it would be very complicated to find solutions in the General Assembly instead, with over 190 states from different parts of the world participating, each with different political systems, cultures and ambitions. In the interests of an efficient UN, it is reasonable that there be a small institution within the larger one to deal with the final decision making. But at the same time, it is obvious that the global system has changed and that it is not plausible to try and preserve the status quo to satisfy power ambitions alone. At the same time, it would be an equally complicated task to find a single voice from a round of permanent Security Council members that are twice as many as now. And how to deal with other states after that, when they also want permanent membership? A rotating system in the Security Council of all members of the General Assembly who meet particular criteria and the abolishment of permanent membership is one possibility. But it would be equally difficult to induce the current permanent members to give up their privileges.

Perhaps there should be one common European representation in the UN. This seems to throw up questions about national power interest once again. But that EU member states took the decision to be part of the European Community, or later the European Union, in the first place denotes a willingness to have a powerful EU that presents a common position on questions of international affairs. A common European representation in the UN and the abandonment of national European representation at the same time could strengthen Europe's position. But reaching this point requires more European integration first, which includes a European constitution and a common foreign policy with a common European ambassador.

These all are aspects that must be considered in constructing a new Security Council and through this, a new United Nations. It is perhaps unrealistic to aim to implement some of these changes by 2020; nonetheless, first steps towards reform should be taken, particularly in view of the fact that the UN has been talking about doing so for 30 years. If Europe makes the first move toward further integration from now until 2020, this may pave the way for possibly the first major reform of the United Nations.

Christina Stober is studying Political Science at the University of Salzburg.

This article has been shortlisted for the Atlantic Community's "Global Governance in 2020" student competition.

Related material from the Atlantic Community:

• Tobias Weise: Global Governance in 2020: The Return of the State
• Soyen Park: The Legacy of the Financial Crisis Awaits Us in 2020
• Yam Ki Chan: Unipolarity's Days Are Numbered
  

February 14, 2009

Unregistered User

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Christina,

> In the interests of an efficient UN, it is reasonable that there be a small institution within the larger one to deal with the final decision making.

Democracy is not always efficient, but that's no reason to stay with a dictatorial system. As I see it we should completely abolish the security council. Having a nation like France in the SC with a population of 20, yet denying a country like India (2nd most populous) is simply unfair and undemocratic. See what you think of this approach...

http://www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org

If you believe in the principle of democracy, I don't see how you can come to any other conclusion...

gary

Tags: | United Democratic nations |

February 16, 2009

Christian von Campe, University of Aberdeen, Silver Contributor (28)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I completely agree with you that a reform of the UNSC is more than necessary. Although I think the system with permanent and rotating members is a good system, the number of states that are constantly represented in the Council need to be reconsidered.
The question however is, how do you measure which states deserve to be constant members of the SC? Is it military capabilites only, or is there more, for example democratisation of states, economies, number of people living in a country et cetera.

Another point is the veto system, which in its current form proved to be capable of delaying and denying fast decisionmaking. In my opinion it seems to be more effective to put in place a system of majority voting. How many votes a member state will have obviously has to depend on capabilities to a degree, but can not solely rely on them either.

Maybe it is not only the SC that needs reforming. Especially since 2002/2003 the world saw that the United States were able to leave the UN and the SC left out of the political decisionmaking. The UN as an organisation to establish and defend peace on earth can not work at all, if member states deliberately abuse their power in the institutions and in the end act against the will of the organisation itself and the international community of states.

Since the US/UK invasion of Iraq, it has become farily quiet about the UN. I hope that this will change soon, that reforms will take place and that the UN eventually can become what it claims to be. THE international organisation with the aim of world peace.

February 16, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

"Especially since 2002/2003 the world saw that the United States were able to leave the UN and the SC left out of the political decisionmaking"

The US certainly did this, because the US has come to feel increasingly marginalised in the councils of the UN. There used to exist a true partnership between Europe and the US within the UN, or at least there was one from the US POV. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall the EU has moved to take more control of the UN and to attunate US influence within the UN, an increasingly successful effort. This is why the US has gradually moved it's major diplomatic efforts away from the UN, because the only efforts which can succeed at the UN are basically European ones, or at very least initiatives heavily supported by Europe. Lichtenstein has a vote, and the US has a vote. Andorra has a vote, and India has - a vote.

Not a very democratic structure when one voting bloc can exercise an effective veto, as the Eu easily can.

I'm all for 'democritisation' of the UN, in the sense that 'outsiders' like the US, India, Japan, Brazil are brought into the central councils and allowed real influence. But it's Europe which will have to recognize the deficiences and take steps to make the UN a better place to do diplomacy for non-european countries, because the EU controls the UN (in a negative fashion). Each time the US and other global powers go to the UN and come away rebuffed, makes it less likley they will use the UN again.....

February 16, 2009

gary

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

So explain something to me. Why a security council at all? Why have a power subgroup that excludes others? Doesn't that strike you as undemocratic?

gary
www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org

February 17, 2009

Christian von Campe, University of Aberdeen, Silver Contributor (28)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

@ gary. I think a Security Council is quite useful, not in a way, that it exclues member states from the decision making, but in the way that it can be easier to find a consensus between 15 (today) or some more (possible future prediction) than if all members are involved. Especially as every country has other countries that will support it, even if it is in the wrong, this might just lead to chaos in the SC.

February 17, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

@gary,

The notion of a 'democracy of nations' sounds good on paper, but in actual application it could be (and often is) a democracy of non-free nations. The 'democratic body' you mention already exists, and during the first 30 years of the UN was taken seriously.

The body I refer to is called the 'General Assembly'. The reason you don't hear of it much today is that it's performance was erratic - not to say nuts. But it exists.

At a more fundamental level the problem with a 'democracy of nations' is that the premise is fatally flawed. Germany (where the people vote) has a vote. North Korea (Kim Il Sung' has a vote. France has a vote, and so does Robert Mugabe. Spain has a vote. Today that means the people of Spain, but in 1970 it meant Franco.

I think when advocating democracy in the UN you need to keep that in mind, that 'democracy' at the UN empowers autocrats.

I think the UN needs to represent power blocs as well as nations. The most valid critique of the UN Security Council n my view is that it represents a view of the world circa 1945, and with the exception of China the upcoming powers (India, Japan, Brazil, and perhaps South Africa) don't have permanent representation in the SC. Europe is represented on the UN SC, arguably heavily overrepresented with Britain, France, and Russia holding permanent seats. But that representation is obviously skewed and thus imperfectly representative of the EU as a whole.

February 17, 2009

replies

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Christian,

> easier to find a consensus

So you would justify the arbitrary exclusion of some nations because it's "easier"? Democracy is by definition NOT efficient. Dictatorships are efficient. I think we should sacrifice "easier" for legitimacy through inclusion.


Donald,

> a democracy of non-free nations.

That would depend on your definition of non-free nations. Is the US a non-free nation? Canada? Denmark?

> The 'democratic body' you mention already exists, and during the first 30 years of the UN was taken seriously. The body I refer to is called the 'General Assembly'. The reason you don't hear of it much today is that it's performance was erratic - not to say nuts. But it exists.

Absolutely untrue. The UN has ALWAYS legitimized dictatorships. The UN has ALWAYS given special (read undemocratic) status to the founding nations. The UN has never been about democracy.

> At a more fundamental level the problem with a 'democracy of nations' is that the premise is fatally flawed.

Donald, I really don't think you've read the concept. Only nations where the people are represented through monitored elections would be included. That would exclude the dictatorships you mentioned. The concept is all about making the distinction between democracies and dictatorships, not in name but in deed.

> I think the UN needs to represent power blocs as well as nations.

Let's examine that idea. I suppose this means you believe China should be a member. I would say that the man behind the "China" nameplate at the UN does NOT represent the people of China, only it's dictators. So, even at the loss of efficiency, there can be NO representative of the Chinese people at the UN when the Chinese aren't even represented in their own country.

Try this example on for size. Suppose a group of terrorists were to take over Denmark. They put the elected leaders against the wall and execute them. The next morning this organization shows up at the UN demanding a seat so as to represent Denmark. In your estimation should we give them the seat?

gary

February 17, 2009

Christian von Campe, University of Aberdeen, Silver Contributor (28)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Gary, legitimacy is a very interesting point in the situation of the UN. The international system of states is still anarchic. There is no such thing as a "global government", if we neglect the the US trying to act as one. By the end of the day, each state is sovereign within its own borders, which would challenge if not oppose any UN legitimacy at all.
Please don't get me wrong here, I do like the idea of a democratic UN, maybe even in the form of a global government with the consent of all its member states. Dictatorships are efficient as you said, however, they tend to create conflicts in both, domestic and international spheres.

The idea that I had in mind was not completely based on exclusion of states. A certain number of states, that share similar interests and possibly attitudes could form blocks and the block as such can have a seat in the SC. How many votes each block has can be depending for example on population, but also include other criteria. In order to decide which way the block will vote, all states of each block have to find a consent within the block and cast all their votes according to the outcome of their consent.
This would in a way be kind of democratic, as each state can vote for what they are in favour of and a single diplomat will then represent the block in the SC.
In my opinion this would move the Security Council forward, as discussions and consensuses have to be made on a lower level and the SC only makes decisions on a global level.
The right to veto in this case has to be taken away from the now permanent SC members.
This way could speed up the decisionmaking process within the SC and possibly restore some of the trust in it, which was lost over the last few years.

February 17, 2009

gary

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Just for the record I'm not proposing the establishment of a "global government". That rubs a lot of people the wrong way and for good reasons.

> The idea that I had in mind was not completely based on exclusion of states.

Your plan would be good as long as everyone feels represented and ownership in the process. Reminds me of a great quote...

"All the ills of democracy can be cured by more democracy." -- Alfred E. Smith

That pretty much sums up my own position.

gary

February 19, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Gary,

You are correct that I didn't really read your link. Perhaps something like what you describe would be useful, but it wouldn't realy replace the UN as a place where all governments can discuss things. Usually when people write about 'democracy' at the UN what they mean is to make the entire thing more like the General Assembly, where the best is like the worst, where their ain't no Ten Commandments, and a man can raise a thirst. (apologies to Rudyard Kipling).

You are also correct that China doesn't represent it's people, although it is more of a oligarchy than a despotism. And not the worst of them, at that. The fact is that despotisms exist and need to be dealt with. The UN fulfills that function in this world. What you describe would not do that.

February 19, 2009

Unregistered User

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Donald,

If the General Assembly didn't have the distraction of the Security Council, perhaps it would be more productive. If the UN didn't allow false representations (like that guy behind the China nameplate), then the UN would be more representative of the world. Which is of course the entire point if it all...to represent the world. Allowing dictators to claim representation of a people only skews the organization AWAY from true representation of the world.

> The fact is that despotisms exist and need to be dealt with. The UN fulfills that function in this world. What you describe would not do that.

How does the UN deal with despotisms? I'm confused on that point. I would think it does just the oppose - by condoning illegitimate representation, it encourages despotism, not the opposite. What are your thoughts here?

gary

February 19, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

"If the General Assembly didn't have the distraction of the Security Council, perhaps it would be more productive. "

Perhaps. I suspect part of the problem with the GA were the despotisms and client states.

What is a democracy (for purposes of this organisation I mean)? Does Russia qualify? Venezuela under Chavez? Peru under Fujimori? Iraq under Sadam? Iran now? Hamas? Japan under the (once) perpetual Liberal Democrats? South Africa under apartheid? All of them have elections of a kind. It is a puzzlement.

I'm not sure the UN encourges despotism, I think historically it has been more of a neutral factor. We have seen despotic governments crumble away under pressure from their democratic neighbors while being UN members in good standing all along. Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Turkey are examples of the phenomena. One could also count Brazil, Argentina, and Chile in that category.

I don't think countries become democratic because of outside pressure, although subtle pressure can help persuade them to go that direction. I think that autocracies make themselves into democracies because democracy is the best way of establishing legitimacy both with your own people and internationally, which increases the stability of the government and the nation generally, which is a desireable thing. You don't become a democracy out of a love of virtue but for strictly practical reasons, I think. I have my hopes that the current recesion will push countries like China and Vietnam in that direction.

February 19, 2009

Unregistered User

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Donald,

> What is a democracy (for purposes of this organisation I mean)?

Defining democracy is clearly the challenge. Here's a great start by an arm of the UN itself...

http://www.demcoalition.org/pdf/CD_participation_criteria.pdf

So criteria CAN be devised. Many areas of life are gray and require interpretation. Free speech is a perfect example. It's not easy, but worth the effort. Same holds for democracy.

> I'm not sure the UN encourges despotism

Would agree that the UN condones despotism by permitting despots to pretend to speak for people? That's my position and I think the cause of human rights requires a more intelligent process. And just to be clear, I'm not proposing the idiotic approach of our last president of attacking countries to force change. But I have no objections to education aid to countries like North Korea. Or beaming in free internet. Or putting a bounty of those convicted of genocide. There are MANY ways to encourage democratic growth without shooting at people.

> I don't think countries become democratic because of outside pressure,

I suspect it's the ONLY reason. You see your neighbors living in relative luxury and you think to yourself what's wrong with this picture. That's exactly why so many dictatorships are closed societies.

> I think that autocracies make themselves into democracies

If you mean the dictators push for democratic reform, I generally disagree. Revolution tends to be more common.

> You don't become a democracy out of a love of virtue but for strictly practical reasons,

Totally agree.

>I have my hopes that the current recesion will push countries like China and Vietnam in that direction.

Me too.

gary

February 20, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

"I suspect it's the ONLY reason. You see your neighbors living in relative luxury and you think to yourself what's wrong with this picture. That's exactly why so many dictatorships are closed societies."

What you are describing are internal pressures, not external pressures. Not all that many dictatorships are closed societies, in terms of being totally closed. North Korea and Myanamar are the ones which come to mind. Perhaps Albania unter Hoxtra, but even there the borders leaked. The old USSR under Stalin, perhaps. But once he died the handwriting was on the wall for them, though it took about 30 years.

So look at what happened in Russia. Yeltsin didn't make it into a democracy because of demands fromn the US, but because his people wanted it - it was his path to power. Under Putin it has backslid somewhat, but it's still not the old USSR. Iran is another quasi-democracy. But Khomeni was a genuinely popular figure in Iran, and one reason is that he did bring a kind of democracy to the place. Not enough, imperfect, and now the people want more democracy, not less. And they might get it what with the oil troubles.

We know that China has it's internal pressures pushing it that direction. If the current regime can't keep the headlong economic expansion going one of two things will happen. Democratisation, easing of the political system. Or revolution.

February 20, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

One more point, engagement is the way that people in despotisms see the outside. Not by expelling them from world forums.

Yes it's morally reprehensible that repressive papa gets to posture as a statesman at the UN, but impressionable son and daughter are also visiting New York - and looking around. Maybe bringing back stuff on dvd to spread around to their friends. That's what happened in Russia with the samizdats (private magazines).

February 20, 2009

Unregistered User

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Donald,

I agree....the pressure to democratize is internal. It's the external exposure that generally makes it possible. And economic failures that often push things over the edge. In my original response I was attempting to say that it's not the dictators themselves that typically turn over power.

And yes, I agree strongly in engagement, but that can come on many levels and does not require a comfy seat at the UN for the dictator's nephew. In the case of UN membership it's legitimacy that's most important, not exposure.

Donald, what's your reply to my Denmark scenario mentioned earlier?

gary

February 20, 2009

Christian von Campe, University of Aberdeen, Silver Contributor (28)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I'm not sure if it is really that important, that all UN member states should be democratic countries. It certainly sounds like an utopia. What is much more important in my opinion is, that the (self-)proclaimed leaders of countries have a platform to discuss. The inclusion of non-democratically elected leaders can be really helpful to monitor what is going on in the countries they represent and it gives the option to hold leaders to account and to question their practices.

I completely agree, that a transition to democracy comes mainly from within a state, however, in a globalised world, this will not be the only driving force behind movements towards this aim. Even the US seem to have understood this by now, although it does not seem to work in Iraq or Aghanistan.
I just want to add a quote from a German comedian, which some people might find offensive, but I think it well fits at this point:
He basically said, that "the only country bombs have ever brought democracy to is Germany."

I also agree with Gary, that a regime change from dictatorship to democracy is very unlikely to happen without revolutionary forces. Peolpe love power and once they've got it, they won't give it away for free or in the interest of the nation.
It will be quite interesting to see when and how this transition starts in China, if it has not started already.

February 20, 2009

Unregistered User

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Christian,

> I'm not sure if it is really that important, that all UN member states should be democratic countries.

It really depends on what you value. If you value human rights, freedom of speech, the rule of law, and so on, then you MUST make a distinction between dictatorship and democracy. If on the other hand you value military power, wealth, and simple expediency, then the distinction is unnecessary. Your choice.

> It certainly sounds like an utopia.

I propose we shoot for utopia. No doubt we'll fall short, but what the hell.

> He basically said, that "the only country bombs have ever brought democracy to is Germany."

Germans are very smart people. I'm sure they would have found democracy on their own.

gary

February 20, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

"Try this example on for size. Suppose a group of terrorists were to take over Denmark. They put the elected leaders against the wall and execute them. The next morning this organization shows up at the UN demanding a seat so as to represent Denmark. In your estimation should we give them the seat?"

An unlikely scenario, but lets go for it. The new Danish "government" would not be widely recognized and is unlikely to last very long in any case. It would be regarded as a terrible terrorist mass-murder, and either the Danish armed forces would come storming in, or NATO forces would. Possibly a seige, with power and food cut off, but eventually it would end with the terrorist's demise. They could not establish a legitimate government. No, the Danish people would do that in elections.

But that is not how revolutions work anyway. Most revolutions have a lot of popular support and have legitimacy based on that support, at least in the early years. Castro won an election or two during the 60's, I think before he stopped holding them. You may quibble about whether he would have won a monitored election (I'm not sure) but he did have a lot of support any way you look at it. Same comments go for Ortega in Nicaragua and Chavez in Venezuela.

But if you look at the most recent revolutions (Iran under Khomeni and Russia under Yeltsin), democracy had a role. That is because democracy reinforces the legitimacy of the state by measuring the popular will.

February 20, 2009

Unregistered User

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Donald, go with the premise. Yes, of course it's unlikely to happen to Denmark and yes, it wouldn't last a week. But the scenario states that Mr terrorist shows up at the UN the NEXT morning.

Well? Do you let him take the seat?

gary

February 20, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

No, of course not. He is not the accredited representative of a diplomatically recognized country.

February 21, 2009

Unregistered User

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Accredited? What does that mean? If you place a phone call back to the capitol, Mr terroist will be happy to verify his accreditation. So now does he get the seat?

On a related note, was it right to seat the representative from Pakistan during the Musharraf regime? To quote wikipedia: "He seized power in 1999 by effecting a military coup d'état and has suspended the constitution of Pakistan twice since then." If so, please explain the difference between this and my example.

gary

February 21, 2009

Christian von Campe, University of Aberdeen, Silver Contributor (28)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I just want to throw in another example: George W. Bush after the 2000 presidential election. It is clear, that he wasnt' elected by the majority of US citizens and there is still a myth about the result in general. This example just shows how hard it could be to determine whether a leader had the support of the majority of it's country behind him or not. The Danish example is exaggerated, but it focuses on the same point as this one. Who is to determine which person is allowed to officially represent a country in the UN? Up until now I believe that this happened through a consensus of the leaders of other states.

February 22, 2009

Unregistered User

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Christian, I would expect that each member of the UDN would come up for review each year, judged against the core principles of democracy...freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and of course fair elections. If a country fails the majority vote of the members, so be it, even if the vote is against the US. I can live with democracy.

> This example just shows how hard it could be to determine whether a leader had the support of the majority

Absolutely it's hard. It's also hard to define freedom of speech. Or genocide. Or many other very important judgements. But they are deemed worth the effort. The alternative to not making judgements is worse. That leaves you basically with what you have now...the UN as a generally failed organization.

> Who is to determine which person is allowed to officially represent a country in the UN?

If you mean who is the ambasador, that would be the judgement of the leadership of the member nation. That's not hard at all. But as I just mentioned, judging membership is the real challenge. As it should be.

gary

February 22, 2009

joe stone, Community Organizer, Silver Contributor (45)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

If you really think the UN actually has any purpose, then I wish you would state what the purpose is. By the very nature of its current structure the UN is doomed to fail at most things it does with the possible exception of providing humanitarian aide.

Any structure that you could design would probably be even more flawed than the current one. Look at how difficult it is to reach agreement and then take decisive action in organizations of nation states such as NATO and EU, which have much more in common than the general assembly of the UN.

February 22, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

"Mr terroist will be happy to verify his accreditation."

Gary, the terrorists now holding the Danish parliament building containing the cooling bodys of the former parliamentarians are not diplomatically recognized, except perhaps by Venezuela and North Korea. I doubt even Iran or Cuba would recognize them. You have to look at the entire clause I wrote.

Pakistan was something of a special case of two coups happening at the same time. The government attempted a coup against Mushareff by refusing permission for his plane to land at the Islamabad airport, and he responded by mounting a coup against them in turn. It was in a sense, deserved.

February 22, 2009

Unregistered User

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Donald,

Again, define "diplomatically recognized". My point here is that you ARE essentially attempting to make a distinction between who gets to be a member and who doesn't. So it's a slippery slope argument. I'm just suggestion that we be more methodical in how we draw that line...draw it based on quantifiable criteria. "Diplomatically recognized" by itself tells me nothing.

Regarding Pakistan, are you telling me that the wrongs of the government somehow legitimize Musharraf as the leader? Sorry...he can be as nice as Santa Claus, but in my book if he wasn't voted in by a majority of his citizens, he is NOT the legitimate leader.

gary

February 22, 2009

joe stone, Community Organizer, Silver Contributor (45)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Using gary’s criteria then a nation like germany would have no representation because the majority of the citizens did not vote for Merkel. You could say the same about Italy and India vis a vis Pakistan. On the other hand nations such as Cuba and China would be represented because lacking elections the question of their leaders receiving the majority of votes is moot..

February 22, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Gary, this is not going anywhere when you refuse to understand the basic concept of diplomatic recognition. Very few governments are not so recognized, the Taliban being a notable exception. Another exception might have been the French government which executed King Louis XVI, but only for a relatively brief time.

If your hypothetical terrorists managed to survive on top for a few years and showed signs of wide popular support in Denmark (such as winning an election), they would probably eventually be recognized diplomatically. But only after they washed their hands.

February 22, 2009

Unregistered User

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Joe, you make a good point. I shouldn't be saying elected by a majority, but rather democratically elected. In other words, receiving the most votes in a fair election. However the situation within a United Democratic Nations whereby a country is voted a member or not would still be a simple majority vote since there are only two outcomes...in or out.

Donald, the UN is clearly broken. It clearly contains nations ruled by dictators. So the term "diplomatic recognition" (that you refuse to define) clearly isn't serving us well in terms of achieving world peace.

> If your hypothetical terrorists managed to survive on top for a few years

Seriously? As in might makes right?

> showed signs of wide popular support

"Showed signs"? Is this some sort of code word for elections?

> But only after they washed their hands.

Now I'm really lost. Too many vagaries Donald.

gary

February 22, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Gary,

What about "(such as winning an election) " could possibly make you believe I was referring to elections. As for 'washing their hands' - well it might refer to literally washing bloody hands, or it might refer to a putsch which got rid of the initial set of murderers (or at least the leadership) and replaced them with figures not quite as obviously guilty of murdering the previous government.

After the French Revolution I don't believe the initial revolutionaries who guillotined Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette (Danton, Robespierre, and co) were actually ever recognized diplomatically. But the Directory which succeeded them was, then Napoleon as First Consul, then Napoleon as L'Empereur were recognized.

February 22, 2009

Unregistered User

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Donald,

Sorry...you did say "such as winning an election". I didn't read your reply carefully enough. I would say that winning an election is the ONLY means that counts (as in literally counts). I don't think anything else in the way of washing hands has any bearing on democratic rule. As we all know, democraticly elected leadership is not any sort of guarantee of good leadership.

So where are we in all this? Does anyone reading these posts believe in a more democratic UN? Or am I just wasting my time and the existing UN is all we will ever have?

gary

February 22, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Gary, I believe in taking more of a long term view on democracy. Looked at over such a timeframe it's obvious that democracy is winning over more converts, because it is the strongest form of government over the long term.

Not to say there aren't reverses, as when a man wins power in an election but turns the democracy into an autocracy. Like the Austrian, or Marcos, or Chavez (perhaps). Military putsches seem to be less in favor these days, at least in Latin America. But democracy appears to be live and well in most of Latin America and Eastern Europe, and even Iran and Russia more or less. The only outlier among the major nations on earth is China, and there I have my hopes, because there are green shoots at the popular level, including dissidents and a strong evangelical christian movement comprising perhaps 100 million people in China.

Autocracies are becoming the outliers. No autocracies left in Europe, North America, or in South America really. Iran and Iraq are both at least quasi-democracies, Russia is a quasi-democracy. But most autocracies left are either in the Mideast, Africa, or weird and incredibly poor exceptions like North Korea and Myanamar.

I think the Chinese should be wooed, not expelled. Softly, softly. Expelling them might queer the pitch, push them into a nationalistic response. If China falls, the influence will put strong pressure on North Korea and Myanamar, both client states of China, and perhaps on Pakistan also.

February 23, 2009

Unregistered User

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Donald,

I agree with you last post, but I wouldn't waste any time in dumping the Security Council at the very least. That's still the most undemocratic aspect of the UN, a historical leftover that has absolutely no place today.

I also agree that China will be a democracy in the near future. While they may try, the dictators in charge cannot hold back the tide indefinitely.

gary

February 23, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Gary,

I don't think the Security Council is particularly about democracy, it is very much a place where power is (or should be) reflected.

Those who decry the SC sometimes miss the point, I think. To me the SC is where the world's great powers come together to argue and debate. Talk talk rather than War war, as Nancy Astor might have put it. The ten revolving members also have a role in bringing things up which would be overlooked in Great Power politics, and also as a means of helping keep the party polite.

Without the SC I think the UN would be terminally boring and would not have the importance that it has now, for all it's admitted faults. Take away the SC and you would be left with the General Assembly. If the UN was left in it's current state the GA would be like a Durban Conference every day - i.e. Jews, Jews, Jews. And that would kill all credibility the UN has left very quickly. Without the autocracies I think the UN would die of terminal worthyness & boredom.

February 24, 2009

Unregistered User

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Donald,

> I don't think the Security Council is particularly about democracy, it is very much a place where power is (or should be) reflected.

That's exactly my point. It would be like giving an extra vote to anyone with 18" biceps. Makes no sense unless your intent is to encourage nuclear proliferation.

> Without the SC I think the UN would be terminally boring and would not have the importance that it has now, for all it's admitted faults.

Of course I'm not just proposing the elimination of the SC, but also a restriction to democratic naitons. So it wouldn't be near as unproductive. At least there wouldn't be as many hurdles to come with respect to human rights & such.

> And that would kill all credibility the UN has left

What can I say. Now you're handing me lines...

gary

February 24, 2009

Unregistered User

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Did you catch this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_re_as/as_nkorea_missile

Apparently Kim Jong-il has very little regard for Security Council resolutions. I would feel much better if it was the entire free world condemning nuclear proliferation, not just an arbitrary group of nations in an organization with a reputation for being ineffective. He might very well launch anyway, but at least we'd have a lot more people opposing him.

I'll say it again....what we have now is NOT working. The longer we take to realize this, the more lives will be lost.

gary

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org