|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 10/6/2005 8:31:00 PM | Frossty, the original post wasn't addressed to you at all. It was a general opinion, nothing more. And please, would you not be slightly taken aback by your remarks were you in my position ?
In any case, the matter is settled. Drinking and being merry is good. Let's both have one then.
One for you  and one for me | |
|
| |
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 10/6/2005 9:41:58 PM | | when i hear nations like iran are chair of the human rights commision it make me puke a govt on the most part is corrupt why do you want to compound it by sticking them all together | |
|
| |
| |
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 12/11/2005 9:27:11 AM | Heres a piece on the "United Nations" research paper i did.
I. S. U. RESEARCH PAPER PROPOSAL
The United Nations
By: Cameron Mitchell
GENERAL TOPIC (A history of the issue):
The United Nations was put together after World War two, their intent was to try and smooth over chaotic international peace, since the world was on the brink of collapse with how the world was being carved up. A saying from Winston Churchill after World War two was “its a dog eat dog world” and basically in general what he’s saying is who ever is more savage, will gain control of the country, their was a lot of sponsorships in these maters from the past, this conflict lead into the “Cold War”. The fight between communism, or Democracy being the new world order. The United Nations was set up to deal with this issue of resolving peace around the world, and have diplomacy step in, and hear all the worlds news on this international stage council, and to help deal with consequences prior and after action from country’s.
The effectiveness of the United Nations has been going on for years, playing an efficient major role on the international scene; it all started in the year 1942 on January 1st, financed by the United States during the time world war two was occurring. It had twenty-six representatives, each from different nations. They were started after the “League of nations” failed to stop the conflict in World War 2.
When asked to name the chief qualification a politician should have. "It's the ability to foretell what will happen tomorrow, next month, and next year --- and to explain afterward why it didn't happen."
--Sir Winston Churchill
The Headquarters is located and built, in the world’s most powerful country, furthermore placed it in the world’s richest city, which is stationed in New York, New York. This is debatable, but it is the best international geographical region to place, and to put your Headquarters in. They generally meet every year or obviously when a crisis arises, to discuss, and plan for various topics ranging from economy, social issues, human development, and poverty and world environment. When issues and tension arises between nations, they conduct ongoing peacekeeping missions and tactics whether its in the military or political duration, they try to smooth issues, generally around the globe, their goal is for the both warring parties to regain peace, and try to save as much innocent bi-standards and ensure they aren’t hurt, they also collect information on war criminals and corruption, its more of a surveillance method documented and brought to the security councils acknowledgment, as they support the “Geneva Convention Policy” and try to enforce it in their time to negotiate in any conflict, that’s brought to their attention. In this situation they take action on an occurring problem/issue, to be sure over the years they have prosecuted many “war criminals” in their years, and are currently trying to help the Sudanese people with their latest “Genocide” issue that’s been occurring for the last five years at last.
The things that will destroy us are: politics without principle; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice.
--Mahatma Gandhi
Through this (peace keeping missions and surveillance) they have lost over 1600 soldiers due to deliberate attacks and hostage executions that happened all over the world. Also Over these past few years they have been come close to shutting down their whole operation as an organization, specifically because of lack of finance from member countries that are cutting down their expected financial aid to support this function. They are in a approx three billion dollar’s debt (U.S currency). Which is having more of an impact on the world than just peacekeeping missions and their military action potential that is ultimately lacking, but by also the contribution to some of the highest human development than any other organization in the world, offering professional and technical assistance, as well as volunteers from around the world, offering people technical assistance and help educate people to encourage and promote people in developing countries who don’t understand how to operate some of these new invention/innovations from high-tech industry economies like Canada, by aiding to their potential in a variety of occupations to boost their overall economy, and offer higher revenue.
Squeezing our money out of politicians is more difficult than squeezing blood from a turnip. To paraphrase an Oscar Hammerstein love song, once they have found a way to take our money, they never let it go.
- Cal Thomas
In final consideration, their goal in the long run is to bridge the gap between the poor and the wealthy. Present day it owns the “food for oil program”, “The international labour union”. They also made a proclamation to the “Universal declaration of human rights”, “International telecommunications union” and the “universal postal service”. It also performs tasks of peace keeping missions, and has its own security council at the headquarters in New York. They hold political talk’s everyday. You can even look at their website for their daily plans to plot for future issues, and occurring, and its usually 10 pages in length.
They have an ultimate goal for the future, and it’s called the millennium goal, it’s to help and achieve by opening up the social and economic global market, to increase the standards of life. This is to sophisticate the people in the developed and developing world. Continuously keeping the peace and developing nations to help the world’s standard of life.
Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
TWO VIEWS / SIDES OF THE ISSUE:
No body denies that the United Nations brings nations together in a sense, and increases diplomatic relations between nations, currently holds 193 member countries in the world, that the United Nations recognizes as a country. All members has a word or say in each, and every situation that occurs in the world this could vary from social, economic, military matters, or political affairs that range from anything over land, money, trade etc.
They are looked at, as a positive organization in the eyes of the world because of these conference techniques they attribute, and how they always touch base on every issue day to day. Presently they are under heat though, from corruption and a lack of participation in the world’s affairs, and just how effective their managing these situations red hot new-fangled issues. They are basically the world council, and confide power and influence in diplomacy, and with all this conflict in the world such as natural disasters, war, poverty, terrorism theirs a lot of tension, and the United Nations power is limited. Their goal is to help human development collaboration between countries. They live on donations and foreign Aid for this noble cause, even though they are in debt, and are spending more than their making they have been noticed for a lot of corruption in the international affairs. Though they are helping the diplomatic relations around the world, and giving the people a chance for making pharmaceutical and medical product cheaper, so they can trade to people who need it. They need more money, so they can have a stable and world-wide approval in the organization, so they can build their reputation again, or else im afraid this will be the next “league of nations”.
VIEW ONE:
Corruption, with the food for oil program has plagued the united nations reputation with the illegal transaction of money that made Sadaam Huesein hated more by the international community, for bribing the united nations. Then he pocketed the money, and split the cut with the UN. This sort of bribery happens all over where the U.N works including drug trade, between U.N officials and their placement in countries by holding illegal drug trades and weapon trades, allowing to go down in their buildings. They also sell their shotguns, and other rifles that are bought and donated to their organization. It’s because the united nations owe over a billion to the World Monterrey fund (IMF) with interest. They are on the verge of collapse. They need more money from countries around the world like the European Union and the Veto nations like USA, China, Russia, France, and United Kingdom.
VIEW TWO:
The effectiveness of their peacekeeping missions, it’s like their there, but their not there to help the people who need the most help. They run from the fighting and only hold their HQ and basically sit it out. It’s just like in the movie “Hotel Rwanda”. When they were their allowing the killing like they made commission off of it, and seemingly didn’t have the resources or the money to even handle the situation they were placed in. Its basically in other words, they just rode around the streets with convoys and guns. Using the slogan “Don’t fire upon unless you’re fired upon” type of perspective.
Thus giving the people a foggy and false hearted respect for the UN, In many eyes the UN has changed from once a highly respected organization. They are still an important organization, where as more or less the only world council in the world. It is something that is needed to maintain. The need to play more of a role in their combat situation, just like there is a good and evil, right and wrong, in every situation like “genocides” and “murder” should be taken into more of a situation such as law is practiced and dealt with in Canada’s domestic society.
The Analysis:
First, United Nations is a crucial world wide organization designed to implicate any conflict the world has between any issue or problem, such as economic, human development, political climate, military problems, natural disaster, poverty, social issues, and other charitable ideas, to a great degree such as clothing and feeding the children in this world in developing nations. It’s great because it’s like the only world council where the diplomats can discuss variety of issues, in an orderly manner.
Meanwhile, on the other hand they are experiencing lack of funding, this is causing corruption, and the reputation is being persecuted because of this. The respect one had for the UN in the last 15 years has dramatically dropped. A lot of issues have been crippling the United Nations credibility, such as drug trade, weapons trade, bribery, not stepping in for genocide because of their policies, and lack of funding.
Secondly, People often see United Nations in the middle between good and bad at the present moment, because of a lot of dissent, corruption due to the fact that their in debt. Their low effectiveness functioning around the world, in doing good for human development. In this Pro’s and Con’s section I will give you why people find them good and why they find them bad to a further degree.
Pro:
The importance of such an organization is necessary for us not to have a catastrophic world. They offer a type of supremacy and impression, and contribute a method for international peace by helping one another, it reaches out to nation to nation, like hand by hand, to help others who can’t help themselves. Their goal, is to help and support the greater good of human kind. To make sure those who suffer will be ultimately minimized as a problem or an issue. They offer increased human development (helping developing) to countries to benefit and gain universal primary education, ensure environmental sustainability, end poverty and world hunger, and to encourage women’s suffrage and give them more power in a smooth transformation, “rescue” the 55 percent of the global population the freedom, reduce child labour, increase global health and care for the ever growing population , conquer and strangle the AIDS/HIV epidemic, increasing relations between countries to promote global partnership in development and cultural exchanges to better understand our worlds inhibitors.
Con:
The decrease and almost the collapse of the United Nations is in turmoil, and is leading to other corruption stories leaking out to the press seems regularly, it’s blowing up in the media such as the allowing of drug trafficking, and the renowned the Iraqi food for oil program, where Sadaam bribed the united nations for not giving the food and medicine to “his people” but for them getting to keep the money, for their military and palaces and other possessions, and other luxury structures. In this regard the UN took a lot of heat for being a “corrupt system” and not standing for what they believe in. When in reality they aren’t getting enough finance to sustain these programs, and not to lead up to their potential in what they claim can be done by the year 2015 (millennium goal). Their belief of giving to the poor and bridging the gap between rich and poor is like a robin hood tale, but it isn’t really happening is places in the world because of issues straining them for expanding their “hand” except pulling their hand back in ( and not giving the worlds people help). It’s erie because all you hear about is the economies growing, and growing. Yet the donations are getting slimmer and slimmer. It is expected that 20% of the UN’s Aid being given out and sold such as machinery, and other input’s and donations will be lost to corruption in the system, because of low finance and high inflated contract prices. "In a global economy, where countries compete to attract investment and to diversify trade opportunities, efforts against corruption can pay huge dividends" Mr. G Shabbir Cheema. The Lack of finance is demising the productivity of what the UN is capable of. It is essentially creating a weaker United Nations. The name itself is symbolic and renowned to the world, if this fails and collapses the organization it will create uncertainty more so than what we are seeing today.
In other words, In this situation, I think the people are more or less content with the work of the United Nations, their not happy with them, but then again their not sad with them. (content) The global population realizes the impact of this organization in keeping the peace, and always being an option during political and military conflict but also with the human issue as well. They help fight epidemics, increase the literacy rate, and infant mortality rate. “all members of the UN are parties to the statute that established the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or World Court”. The United Nations priority issue’s list deals with such problems such as: Building Donations
Africa
Ageing
Agriculture
AIDS
Atomic Energy
Children
Climate Change
Culture
Decolonization
Demining
Development Cooperation
Persons with Disabilities
Disarmament
Drugs & Crime
Education
Elections
Energy
Environment
Family
Food
Governance
Health
Human Rights
Human Settlements
Humanitarian and Disaster Relief Assistance
Indigenous People
Information Communications Technology
Intellectual Property
International Finance
Iraq
Labour
International Law
Law of the Sea & Antarctica
Least Developed Countries
The Millennium UN General Assembly
- The Goals -
Question of Palestine
Peace & Security
Population
Refugees
Science and Technology
Social Development
Outer Space
Statistics
Sustainable Development
Terrorism
Trade & Development
Volunteerism
Water
Women
Youth
*Chart on Issues for the U.N-
The Canadian View:
Canada is known as a peacekeeping country by being one of the only countries who have set up the most peacekeeping missions in the past fifty years, but like wise with the Canadian and United Nations military is lacking from finance. They cannot be fully function able in security without substantial resources in protection. Canada spends roughly 9.5 billion dollars on their military annually. Their policy’s are the same (as the democratic ideological “United Nations”), and they don’t really step in when there are morals involved at stake, when their in “genocide conflict” its shoot if they shoot at you. Canada is looking at the United Nations as being un-reliable and don’t know the full comprehension of what is actually going on within their situation in the world. It is making the Canadian government and the Canadian taxpayers weary, for supporting their organization. They are not to sure about their dependability. All they hear in the news is corruption form this organization, illegal weapons and drug trades, oil for food trade bribes. The Canadian people see this and can’t understand the “bigger picture” and financial state the United Nations is in.
The Future Outlook:
Finally, the future is like a coin toss in the air for the U.N, but I believe with the secretary general we have, who is passionate about his work and loyal and cares about the people, I believe it will sustain until he is done his term because of his high international respect.
Even so, the United nations need’s increasing funding annually, more to help them get out of debt, and also with the growth of seventy-five million people each year adds to the worlds population, also with security forces needed ever so much these days, it would be a benefit for this global council. This would minimize their corruption issue, which is one of the biggest drains to why some developing countries aren’t developing fast enough to create an adequate life standard.
If they were funded adequately, we just need to trust in this golden democratic ideal and proceed through (with this organization) in volunteering programs that’s the good people of this world contribute to the greater good of human kind, and with political talks, and keeping each other (international community) close. (For humanities sake) I feel that if this organization splits we could fear a global economic recession in the west, and all areas around the world by slowing growth economically, poverty would increase and tensions between countries would pit fall. This is a way for everyone’s voice to be heard among the people of this world.
The real and lasting victories are those of peace, and not of war
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Mapping the issue:
In final consideration, the question that comes to mind, is why is the headquarters of the United Nations stationed in New York, its because when you look at it, they are the world leader in everything. Ranging from economic to military and political strength. They are truly the “veto” nation in the world and deserve to have it in the “worlds richest city”. New York city. This I feel is the most proficient place to put your international organization’s Headquarters. Though they hold conferences around the world, every year on different issues.
The United Nations is our one great hope for a peaceful and free world.
- Ralph Bunche
The greatest things are accomplished by individual people, not by committees or companies.
- Alfred A. Montapert | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 12/11/2005 9:31:06 AM | | My thoughts on world government or soverign right now......realistically and not hypotheitcally would be no....this world would not be able to substain it....culturally, and financially. It would fall. This world is still tribal. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 12/11/2005 11:42:40 AM | on the contrary i think were making progress, in steping that way and as an example you could see the "European Union" being so culturally diverse, coming together, you also see in the last 25 years the "America's" coming together and having economic trading between them. So lol we are seeing this "New World" come to light in somthing that could end up being a one world nation. It will take steps and i cannot see it happening in our lifetime. I would say around 500 years give or take that we will see this transformation transition,.
What i would like and try to press forward would be a "one world currency"
* im thinking that it would cut down poverty.
*I think it would encourge economic growth with products being sold around the world at a global fluctuation price.
* I think it would support more world unity, because if the dollar was doing bad, it would be global problem.
And lastly
THE EUROPEANS HAVE THEIR OWN DOLLAR, lets get world DOLLAR | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 12/11/2005 4:40:34 PM | | Personally I think it's a bad idea. For one thing, it would by design choke off a certain amount of healthy competition between nations and regions. Another thing is that , should it become corrupt, how could we do anything about it ? Sooner of later enough money is going to have the same effect it always does on politicians. We'll end up with an un-democracy. It's the powerful people who already rule the nation they represent and they got that way before anybody elected them. I see no reason to think this would be any different. As well, I'm not too keen on having a corrupt ultra-government based in say, Kuala Lumpur deciding the policies to be applied to the Canadian prairie region where I live. In fact, I'm dead set against it. No, in my opinion this is a bad idea and for many more reasons than I've mentioned here. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 12/11/2005 5:11:16 PM | I see your point and you drive a good one.
Modifications would need to be done, just like the constitution will be re-writen to try and concept everyones idealogies and make them content.
As for nations and regions, their will always be provinces just like the goverment has citys and mayors to run them.
Trade would be the same, wal-mart would become more expanisve and honestly open up the market like a flood gate, you wouldnt see so much development in your life in third world countries.
Ummm, The European Union would be a good set up. Representitives from each nation have a democratic vote.
But like history has shown us. The roman republic failed, due to diffrent idealogies and people will always look at situations diffrently. We need true politicians, man for the people and of the people, compassion will be key.
Personally i dont think this system wont be set up because of faults in human kind at the presenet moment due to finance, cultural, corruption, poverty.
Its getting me thinking lol, ummm corruption is my biggest fear, preassure, assisnation for people to get their ways, its human nature and greed is infinite. But say that votes for any change in the region would go down the Provincial/state politicians such as MP's Mayors, premeiers. Majority vote obvioulsy, unaminous vote would never resolve an issue.
Ummmm, protection and security for politicans would have to be taking very seriusly, but their will always be bad apples.
I think we could organize this, and i think we would have the backing of the corporations, people, but governments who control power wouldnt want to minimize their power. And like i said before their are cultural issues and financial, corruption.
This wouldnt be able to set up for a long time, untill we start running down are 12.7 trillion dollar debt.
This would more or less be a council, all the revenues and expentures would be entact and distributed.
The richer regions like canada ontario budgets, only surplus would be sent to the account balance of the council. Then they decide where to put that surplus of money in their budget.
Probably to the military for the first several years.
risky, tricksy | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 12/11/2005 5:31:30 PM | | All religions will be free, in regions as well as language. They will all stay the same. Anything other than choosing an international language is dicatorship and extreme, in time you will see a langauge come out of this. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 12/11/2005 6:29:44 PM | When I was younger I thought to myself "Well, why not just have everybody put their armies under the jurisdiction of the UN and allow them to decide what to do with them ?" If you think about that for a bit it becomes clear what the problem with the idea is. If the UN makes policy, they could effectively invade a land with its own troops. Worse yet, you'd be defenseless against it. And if somebody in the UN decides that they don't like the way you're operating things at that level but would rather talk it out, you might have to still worry about the other ten people calling for the invasion anyway. What if a region decides it doesn't like the uber-powerful UN and wants to go it alone ? Too bad. Some would say to let them go right ? But that has been proven through history to be a bad idea. You let one go and pretty soon ten more line up for the same thing. Then of course, you don't have a world government anyway. Imagine trying to ban Sharia law in say, Iran. How long before the UN would have to send in it's super army to keep them in line ?
There are other reasons to fear this idea as well. For example, we've seen what happens when everybody thinks alike (or is forced to anyway) The bureaucracy tends to fossilize yet continue to grow. Dissent is intolerable. Basically, because we can't be certain that the state will always be run benevolently we have reason to fear a supreme world government. Regions can't practice effective autonomy because that would mean different rules for different people. That might (and realistically would) produce the "favorite child" perception. See the whole idea is to bring everybody under one government, one system, and one set of laws and ethics. That's exactly why this would fail. Can you imagine the UN adopting Sharia law (to use it as an example again) and trying to impose it on the entire world ? Or imagine trying to keep resentment from festering when the okay is given for thirty million people to move from say, Vietnam to China to get jobs. We'd have incessant warfare after a pretty short period of time and this would likely be worse than anything we've ever seen. The countries that are currently rich would be up in arms when they saw the tide of economic regugees that started streaming into their lands. Frankly, you'd have World War Three after a few years of one world government.
Until every nation evolves to a certain standard of living, ethics, and culture on its own, this idea is just bad. I mean, it seems like a good one on the surface but in practice I just can't see anything good coming from it. In fact, it reminds me alot of the communist theory...well, we know how that turned out. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 12/11/2005 9:49:35 PM | Sovereign Nations. I think its important for countries to retain their Sovereignty. Domestic issues vary from country to country. I don't think any one massive world government could cater to the individual needs of those countries.
However, I do think a good set of International Laws which were respected by all countries and incorporated into their own state policies would go a long way to achieving peace. There also has to be a better mechanism then what is currently in place at the UN to ensure that countries respect International Law. You can tell a country that it has to respect International Human Rights Law but without a good way to enforce it and state support for that enforcement, it won't work.
It also has to be a real group effort. Why would a country respect it if it was not allowed to have input or its input was respected less than that of a more powerful country?
I think the UN has some good building blocks in place there. Its got issues but issues you can work through. I wouldn't just scrap it and create a new entitity. Instead, work on improving the systems that are already there. | |
|
| Sovereign Nations or World Goverment?
Posted: 12/11/2005 9:52:07 PM | once again its always a huge possibility at teh start of somthing this tremendous....people would be weary, and arms races "civil war" would tear this to pieces.
once you establish a good system, and you work hard to minimize domestic corruption. You will see devrelopment and that bringing in revenue and thus giving back to the people by investing in infrastrucure, education, health care.
favouritsim HUGE issue, like i said this world is still tribal. Muslims and Christians, big tensions.
well, you could look at this their wont be any more isreal hebrew enforcing in the "holy land"
I think generally now this system could work, but yes when you said if iran wants to leave more will want to leave and have their own liberal land, its just like candy, it tastes sweeter and as the grass looks greener on the other side. Their could not be one failing member wanting out or the whole thing fails.
I think one world system would solve alot of problems, we could cancel the whole country and just have provincial in the council theirs around 2500 provinces/states in this world. It would be more democratic. of cource theirs tons of small provinces that would have to be merged by giving an ethinic group more votes. and being fair in general.
Politics will be politics after that....
I think we would see alot of human progress with this system if it was so....space programs!! lol exploration. and it would be a world accomplishment.
| |
|
|
|
Home
login 
