-{SpoonmaN}-

Ok here's the idea I've already put out before. Don't scrap the UN, just totally reform it from the ground up with one major difference: Member states must conform to mimum standards of human rights, democracy, international co-operation, responsible government and accountability to this 'New United Nations'. It's kinda like the EU with their membership requirements. In return the new member gets financial aid, military protection from wars of agression, trade benefits (this would also help loosen up trade and make it more fair) and co-operation with natural distaters, terrorist incidents and the like from the other member states.
This new body could have a Secretary-General elected by the Member states who have a voting preference partially based on their population (say countries with more than 5% of the total get extra votes etc.). Vetos need to be exercised by, say, a 20% vote to block a motion etc. There could be a joint Multi-National Forces composed of say, 5% of each member state's regular forces who are available for peacekeeping and resolution enforcement, with states being allowed to opt out of any mission provided they take up the slack in another area so another country can take their place. The body could have it's own para-military Security Force to protect it's staff and installations (wouldn't have to be big, maybe with a clause stating that only citizens of member states can work for it).
An idea I really like would be to give it funding to establish an international radio and television service based on the six major languages dedicated to showing educational programs in those languages about the various cultural and relgious groups around the world to give people a chance to see how everyone else lives and all that. News would be a controversial aspect that would be best left out I suspect.
The membership requirements would not be economically based, so poor nations that make a real effort to respect human rights and democratic values would be able to join and enjoy greater financial aid as well as protection from agression by their neighbours. There'd be no more dictatorships heading human rights committees, no more genocidal governments taking the USA to the international courts etc. There'd also be protection for large nations like the USA from being legislated against by nations with 1% of their population, while countries like the USA and France would not be able to veto everything proposed by eachother without support from numerous other nations.
The biggest benefit would probably be in really encouraging dicey governments to clean up their act in exchange for financial aid and military protection (this would only be from external agression, nothing about rebellions). There'd be a pretty large pool of professional soldiers from the member states who would be on stand-by to stabilise conflicts zones and all that. There could also be a rule that any act of naked agression by one member against another results in the suspension of both until the conflict is resolved. The secretariat of this body would be accountable to the member states through the assembly to weed out corruption (they could be investigatable by INTERPOL for extra accountability).
In general I think this would be a far more effective international body that would not require great surrenders of sovereignty by member states like world federalists want.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

Confed999

Nobody is actually going to subject their nation to an "accountability" clause, it's like asking to get bent over.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

-{SpoonmaN}-

I meant government accountability to their population through free media and all that.

troung

So then the Comoros would be unable to tell us what to do.

I don't care how many people live in nation X, they have no right telling me what to do. I live in the US of A.

A non starter.

__________________
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

Confed999

So currently there would be what, 4 or 5 nations that would be allowed in?

Officer of Engineers

For Pete Sakes, Spoonman,

Who stepped up for East Timor? Australia or the UN?

__________________
Chimo

-{SpoonmaN}-

Australia, but I don't see anyone stepping for Congo or Somalia, and no one wanted to hear about Rwanda did they?

-{SpoonmaN}-

More like 80 to 100. This is not the EU, but if you look around most countries have a half-decent democracy in place. There could be added rewards for continued improvement (usually letting that genie out means it cant go back in anyway). They don't have to be wealthy, they dont have to be perfectly stable and prosperous, they just have to be trying.

-{SpoonmaN}-

One thing I might have to concede is the difficulty in getting China in, and the body would be pretty much irrelevent without their membership. Maybe the whole thing could start off with the Big 5 and grow from there. When you look at it, the PRC government is accountable to it's people the hard way.

canoe

The U.N works just fine as an international diplomatic body.

As anything else it always has been and always will be no matter what reforms you make a useless entity. In order for it too solve serious problems the worlds nations would actually need to work together and accomplish things. Thats not anymore likely to happen no matter what reforms you make.

Confed999

Most of Europe doesn't even have free speach, these must be some low standards, and minimal accountability. The UN has no power on it's own, might as well just keep that around.
I guess the standards are very very low. LOL!

-{SpoonmaN}-

It ain't about meddling in the internal affairs of a country, just their international dealings. And did I not point out that the USA having a large population would get extra votes, and there's the added bonus that the USA is allies with like 2/3 of the planet, so you'd be more than protected.
Remember, you live on planet Earth as well.

Confed999

I do not want to be allied with tyrants...

-{SpoonmaN}-

I'm pretty much saying to exempt the big 5, 3 of them are fine as is. Russia is getting there (slowly) as is China. And what do you mean most of Europe doesn't have free speach?
Anyway the point is that countries like Sudan and Zimbabwe would need to change before they could get in.

Officer of Engineers

Oh get off it

Congo - Canada
Somalia - the US
Rwanda - Canada