Is JFK's dream of the UN dying?

"To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support - to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective — to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak—and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run."
-- John F. Kennedy, January 20, 1969

Is the UN going the way of the League of Nations?

On US turf the US wants to call the shots. Likely it would elsewhere as well, but it would be a powerful message of independence for the other nations to make.

I wouldn't insist on having my way.

My personal belief is that moving the United Nations headquarters to Jerusalem would help the situation there by sending a clear message to the world that they want to get serious about cleaning up the situation, perhaps. If the UN could administrate the city, that would be excellent. A pipe dream, maybe, but we can dream.

By the way, your continued rudeness is unnecessary.

It's geographically isolated to protect it from easy terrorist attacks, and Iceland has been a member of NATO for decades but hasn't participated in the US's aggressive wars so is generally considered neutral ground (which New York and Jerusalem clearly aren't). It was neutral enough to be acceptable for Gorbachev to meet Reagan there, for example.

Iceland is also home to the world's longest continually operating form of democratic republic, since their Alþingi (general assembly) was first established in 930 A.D and has been revised since to make it more democratic, in 1851 for example, and without internecine warfare. That's a nice touch, I think, for a new home for the UN HQ.

Works for me. Your thoughts on that?

I did know the fact about Iceland having the longest continuous legislature. Interesting.

Iceland's remote location can have both positive and negative effects; on one hand, it makes the United Nations at least appear more neutral; on the other, it may isolate it to the point where it impacts its operations negatively. Reykjavik is certainly an interesting idea, if not completely accessible.

How about Athens?

the home of the UN.

Interesting idea, might solve a few problems in one fell swoop.

Won't be considered though.

We don't deserve to have it here. It should be in a country where the leadership values diversity and wants to build a world of peace.

Sadly, this country is hated all over the world. We are not the beacon of light that the UN deserves.

The pugs don't seem to like people telling when they've fuct up so they keep trying to illegitimize the UN's creidibility (like the U.S. has any left). Luckily, the rest of the world sees through the crap.

oil for food scam
rwanda genocide
Sudan on Human rights committee
and the list could go on.

Refusing to pay the US's share of UN dues, etc. to do their best to make sure the UN can be nothing but a toothless debating society.

You thoughts?

and especially not lying to the security council might be a good place to start, in an effort to regain lost credibility with the rest of the world.

Just a thought...

The current setup of arbitrary veto powers given to certain nations makes action very impractical and usually results in deadlock and/or the watering-down of values the UN is supposed to stand for. This is one of the main problems, in my opinion.

Any proposal to do so would likely be vetoed, if not by the US (which has done the majority of the vetoing in recent years) then by one of the other permanent members of the security council. Maybe some new system could be negotiated that would be acceptable to all to pass a vote without getting vetoed, but I don't know what that would be.

Based on population?

There is no incentive for nations to act the right way, because the UN is all-inclusive -- and toothless. Nobody can be exiled from the United Nations except by their own choice. If we adopted a population-based system, do we really want Bangladesh and China to rule the world? We need to have some balance between promoting democracy though democracies leading and promoting democracy through allowing democracy.

but the basic idea is still sound.

Iraq Oil/Food.

How does the world keep the UN from being corrupt?

We lambast Bush for what happens on his watch.

Annan & the UN have some explaining to do.

make ALL world decisions and they despise having to pay our dues.

Now of course, the republicans want to toss the whole Iraq mess into the UN lap to ensure a Bush win...but they didn't give a shit when they ignored the UN and they wanted to invade for Oil, US bases, corporate profits (Halliburton, Carlyle Group, etc.) and to push Bush's poll numbers up (they thought).

If the UN does bails them out...the same swine will immediately point the finger (again) at the UN for all the problems in Iraq and the republicans and the corporate media will accept it as fact...Shameless BushCo Assholes!
:shrug:

The UN was FDR's dream. He thought it would help take policy-making out of the hands of the fascists if there were an organization that would eliminate fear from international politics.

Instead of taking policy-making out of the hands of the fascists, it encourages it. The United Nations must have some actual repercussions for governmental oppression and undue violence.

stick and carrot approach can work if you believe that is what happened in Libya.

the UN does not enforce its resolutions and is too busy condemning israel to be of much use. these days it is merely a debating and social club for dictators and other nations. Sad but true. if only they could have lived up to its original intentions. I think that Kofi resigning would be a good start if they really want to make it a United Nations.