gdstark

Yep, you've got to start somewhere. Maybe it starts with the current members of the Congress of Democracies (a UN organization). Maybe it starts with one nation who takes the initiative. Just because something is difficult to do, doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. If we continue down our current course, just try and imagine the effort it will take to respond to a nuked NY or London. What is the current cost in lives of Darfur or a dozen other unresolved tradegies? The UDN concept is based on the idea that we can do better. And who doesn't think we can do better?

If you look closer at the concept you'll see that it does call for an organization stripped of any military power. But meeting to address issues of global overfishing of the seas, overpopulation, environmental issues would clearly be more that just "charity". Surely you would agree that there are basic issues beyond charity that require a global response? You mentioned the UN and "effective" in the same sentence. Really?

NATO and the other organizations you mentioned have existed a long time. So if they were the answer to addressing global conflicts and such, they have failed right along with the UN. It's this simple...some issues require a global response. And that means every nation where we can find legitimate representatives who can speak for those nations. And while that includes a good number of nations, it does NOT include North Korea, China, Cuba and the like. To include them is a slap in the face of the Chinese, the North Koreans, Cubans, and democracy in general.

gary
UnitedDemocraticNations.org

glyn

[quote=gdstark;381794]

NATO and the other organizations you mentioned have existed a long time. So if they were the answer to addressing global conflicts and such, they have failed right along with the UN.

I think you have that wrong. NATO was formed solely as a mutual defence organisation by the western democracies. It cannot be used to sort out all the worlds troubles. The UN was created to replace the League of Nations, as that had failed to prevent WW2. It has spectacularly failed to prevent countless wars of varying sizes all over the globe. We should start again with a clean sheet of paper and come up with something far better - and that means less expensive, less bureaucratic and with a much reduced staff. It need not be in one of the great cities of the world either. The terms of reference to be hammered out, taking care to avoid the idiocies of the past. A new organisation for a new(ish) millenium. Altruism and realism? It might even work!

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

gdstark

[quote=glyn;381805]I'm not proposing that NATO should be the organization for resolving global issues (it was gunnut who brought up NATO). And I would agree...we need to start with a clean slate. And I also agree that the UDN needs to have a roving headquarters rather than a grand palace in any one location.

gary
UnitedDemocraticNations.org

gunnut

UDN is a bad name. Only a fraction of the ~200 nations will be able to join. Those that can't join won't care about it nor listen to it.

If all nations can join, then why the "Democratic" in the name?

And yes, I did use the word "effective" and UN in the same sentence. I don't deny that UN is effective at some things, mainly fighting common diseases (not exotic ones like AIDS or SARS) and let all the nations have a room to vent.

UN should not have a military arm; should not have sanctioning power; should not keep peace; should not prevent wars; and should absolutely not pass any global resolutions.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

gdstark

Since it's a sliding scale, the number that qualify depends entirely on where you draw the line. So you assumption that it's just a fraction is premature.

Democracy is the goal, hence the name. It's the best of all known systems. Churchill said it best: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."


If the UN saves one life, but at the cost of one billion dollars, would you still use the word "effective"? To use the word "effective", you need to consider the cost. I don't doubt that the UN has done good in the world, or that they have employees with good intentions. It's just that I'm not satisfied with UN progress on the most important issues...nuclear proliferation, overpopulation, human rights. We urgently need more progress than a non-democratic institution can deliver. France is a permanent member of the security council, but is only the 20 in population. India is the 2nd most populous nation on the planet, yet has no such position. This is a slap in the face of democracy.

The UN should not have a standing military force, but it should work to avoid war at the global level. And if all members can agree on global resolutions, this could be considered progress. The penalty for a member breaking the resolution should simply be expulsion. And if the UDN is the organization it should be, that alone would be a very high price to pay.

gary
UnitedDemocraticNations.org

gunnut

So anyone pretty much can just walk in and join this organization because he can always say "democracy is my goal, we're just not quite there yet." And the sliding scale pretty much just eliminates the legitimacy of "Democratic" from your label.

Ironically, that's what the UN is most ineffective at. Billions of dollars spent on these endeavors with nothing in return.

On the other hand, UN spent less than this amount and eradicated polio and small pox. How many lives were saved by these 2 acts alone?

UN can do more of the same. It easy to provide some basic clean drinking water, soap, and DDT that can save millions from maleria and dysentary. AIDS is not close to being a problem when compared to some other common diseases in the 3rd world. AIDS is a problem in the minds of Hollywood elite because they might get it and there's no cure. They don't get maleria or dysentary. So we spend billions of dollars to save some rich asses while millions die from problems that could be easily remedied for less than $1 per person.

Aha, so the truth comes out. Another petition to get India a permanant seat on the UNSC.

Ooooh, expulsion. Like that's any deterant. Let's see you expel North Korea and observe the terror in Kim Jong Il's eyes. Those who don't want to play ball simply won't care. And there's nothing you can do to someone like that. Besides, those nations will just pay off some others to derail the expulsion vote.

Your vision of the world is too idealistic, too naive. It sounds like something a rich liberal who has never faced any difficulties in life would come up with. The real world is different. Nations form blocs with those who share their visions to protect their own interest in institutions like the UN. Who was on Iraq's side before the war? Russia, China, France, for 2 reasons. First, they don't want to see the only superpower left dictate the world on any issue. Second, France was paid off.

Who's on Iran's side right now? Russia and China. Why? Russia is against anything the US wants. China wants oil, and is against anything the US wants. The enemy fo their enemy is their friend. They have nothing in common other than not willing to yield the world to the US. So we have this mess on our hands.

zraver

Aids/HIV is a huge problem in Africa. Some nations now have clsoe to a third of the adult population with either AIDS or HIV. This devestatign becuase it hits the working age the hardest. Loss or bread winners and marternal mortaility are already crushing problems in poverty stricken areas and HIV magnifie sit a hundred fold.

Both HIV prevalence rates and the numbers of people dying from AIDS vary greatly between African countries. In Somalia and Senegal the HIV prevalence is under 1% of the adult population, whereas in South Africa and Zambia around 15-20% of adults are infected with HIV.

In four southern African countries, the national adult HIV prevalence rate has risen higher than was thought possible and now exceeds 20%. These countries are Botswana (24.1%), Lesotho (23.2%), Swaziland (33.4%) and Zimbabwe (20.1%).

West Africa has been less affected by AIDS, but the HIV prevalence rates in some countries are creeping up. HIV prevalence is estimated to exceed 5% in Cameroon (5.4%), Côte d'Ivoire (7.1%) and Gabon (7.9%).

Until recently the national HIV prevalence rate has remained relatively low in Nigeria, the most populous country in Sub-Saharan Africa. The rate has grown slowly from below 2% in 1993 to 3.9% in 2005. But some states in Nigeria are already experiencing HIV infection rates as high as those now found in Cameroon. Already around 2.9 million Nigerians are estimated to be living with HIV.

Adult HIV prevalence in East Africa exceeds 6% in Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania.

Sure lets cure the dollar a day diseases and provide freshwater, but lets not pretend any culture can survive losing 10-30% (upto a 300% workforce rollover over the working life of a single person) of its workforce per year. An adult in the worst part of Africa statistically has zero chance of not getting HIV at some point in thier lives.

entropy

UN and the similar are in dire need of Viagra.


Any organisation funded by sheer good will and not defending any economical or political interests, and not authorized to "shoot before shot at" is impotent.

__________________
If memory serves...

gdstark

I'm not Indian, I don't know anyone who is Indian, and I've never been there. But I do have children and I want them to grow up in a peaceful world. So I've thought about this problem a great deal, even going as far as to propose a solution via my United Democratic Nations concept. So, gunnut, please don't denegrate my motivations so quickly.

Expel North Korea? Yikes! Do you sincerely believe that North Korea would be a member in the first place? Allow me to give you a very short definition of democracy to clear things up: NOT North Korea.

Now THAT'S an accusation I can live with...thanks!

Well put. Of course the "real world" is ultimately what we make of it. I'm simply proposing that we have choices to make. I guess my only real question for you is this: do you have a proposal for how we could make things better? Or are you pessimistic and resigned to the status quo?

gary
UnitedDemocraticNations.org

gdstark

I'm not clear on what Viagra has to do with the United Nations. And I would make the argument that peace IS in our best interest. It even has a name, the "peace dividend". Money spent on war works against economical interests.

gary
UnitedDemocraticNations.org

gunnut

OK, so no North Korea. That means this organization has very little power over them. How do you propose to influence them when they don't care in the first place?

Will China be in it? Let's say China is in it. Does that mean China meets your standard of a democracy? If not, how do you propose to influence the most populous nation and the fastest growing economy in the world?

How about Cuba and Venezuela? Sudan? Iran? Syria? Libya? Let's say they don't belong. They form their own bloc. They control a huge amount of oil and export strife in the form of terrorism across their region. How do you propose this organization to deal with them?

Nothing wrong with having an ideal. It's just that ideals should be tempered with reality.

I already have a solution. Strip UN of its peace keeping force and sanctioning powers. Maintain WHO, even expand it, but we have to spend our budget on fighting diseases that are lethal yet easy to treat. Not AIDS. Let UN be a gathering place for different blocs like NATO, EU, ASEAN, the Arab League, and African National Congress to engage in trade talks and vent grievances. Let regional powers deal with regional instabilities. Keep UN out of local disputes.

entropy

Pay private military companies to take care of business.

chankya

You do remember what happened to the roman republic?

__________________
"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides

glyn

smalltexan

Russia has been selling its old SCUDs to Iran, so Iran has active weapons at its disposal. I agree about stripping the UN, it's a toothless, clawless behemoth. I'd start new rounds of talks to bring about new treaties re: arms reductions and types of defense systems, alliance in SEATO and NATO, and as enticement, get tough on Israel.