Theory Post

To bring an end to the Problems surrounding the United Nations there needs to be multiple reforms, they need to gain legitimacy, and they have to start being able to reinforce the resolutions that they pass. I believe the United Nations will have to give up being a Democratic Organization and realize that they are not the World’s Police or the World’s Government. In some ways this will require them to give up some power. I believe that once they establish themselves as the World’s mediator they will be an successful organization. They will the power to pass resolutions and enforce them once large nations like the United States start to uphold them. In the defense of these large nations, so far the United Nations has passed resolutions that favor smaller nations, which makes it more difficult for larger nations to agree with them. If the United Nations can prove they are useful and can resolve problems the polarized sides will dissolve. This is because one side pushes for more power to the United Nations and another pushes for the United Nations to give up. I believe the United Nations need to give up some power in order to gain more back later. It is a risky maneuver, but I think that it just might work.

United Nations Secretariat

The Secretariat is the Bureaucracy of the United Nations. Currently, there are about 30,000 employees Worldwide. Out of the 30,000 employess, 35% work at the headquarters in New York, Geneva, Vienna and Nairobi. To create an analogy to the American Government. This would be like having a very condensed government. Instead of being widespread and having courts all over the place along with smaller governments, the United Nations has large fixtures which make the Secretariat very hard to contact. In reforming the Secretariat, some of the reforms could make the United Nations more transparent, more accountable, and more efficient. Some have even said that including direct election of the Secretary-General by the people (representatives of nations) would be an acceptable reform.

Other reforms that could do the United Nations some good would be to create more councils similar to the United Nations Human Rights Council, which was voted in in March of 2006. A council like this could specialize in a certain area of world peacekeeping and would allow for the United Nations to be more efficient. I believe that the United Nations, and most other governments in the world, could be more efficient. If it calls for the United Nations to give up their ideals of Democracy, then they must do so. The United Nations likes to call itself a Democracy, when really a Democracy would have either a Direct Election of the leader. The United Nations is not a World Government, but a forum for nations to come and resolve issues. If more councils need to be created, or the title of Democracy taken away, then the United Nations must do so.

Update

The New York Times has released an article stating that Iran may endorse a deal that would send Iranian Uranium abroad for peaceful purposes. The fact that this is a deal brought about and made through the United Nations could lead to more negotiations between Iran and the United Nations. While the shipment of Uranium is of the less important issues surrounding Iran today (at least to the American People). I personally hope these talks will lead to more serious talks with Iran about issues such as Nuclear Weapons and their role as a "Democracy" in the Middle East. Hopefully Ahmadinejad will be able to meet with some of the United Nations representatives and resolve some of the issues that have been problematic and newsworthy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/world/middleeast/27iran.html?_r=1

In other news the United Nations has delayed a Climate Change Treaty which was expected to come in the next few days. I can only wonder if this treaty will be released with a close proximity to the Cap and Trade Bill in the United States Congress. It would allow all the major news networks to cover climate and global warming for a few days, which could lead to more support for both bills/treaties that would be passing through their respective voting process. I will try to keep you guys updated on the news on both of these things.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010141942_apununclimatechange.html

Analysis Post of the Problems in the United Nations

The United Nations is the largest (162 members as of 2006) international peacekeeping authority. However, it is understood that the United Nations is having problems with being recognized as an authoritative, worldwide authority. These problems have been around since the United Nations was founded and put into action in 1945. There are 2 basic ideas where it comes to the United Nations: 1) Every Nation should immediately recognize the authority of the United Nations, or 2) the United Nations should give up and realize that they have no power.

United Nations should gain Authority
This view believes that having a United Nations is integral to the safekeeping of our world and will help stop another large-scale, or World War from happening again. People who agree with the previous statement believe that the United States should set an example and start to follow the rules and regulations of the United Nations. People who follow this view believe that the United States, or any other nation, should not undermine the authority of the United Nations and go against their word. A lot of these views stem from the United States decision to invade Iraq in 2003, after the United Nations voted not to.

The United Nations should give up

This view believes that the United Nations should accept that they are wasting time and stop trying to assert the authority that they do not have. People who agree with the previous statement believe that all nations are going to act in their own interest and that a superpower, people who follow this philosophy believe that the United States is the main superpower, should regulate the world. These people supported the United States decision to invade Iraq in 2003, even after the United Nations voted against it. They cite that when the United Nations sent weapons inspectors and peacekeepers to the Iraq border, they were turned away because the Iraqi Military knew that the United Nations had no power.

My View

I believe that the United Nations needs to recognize that they have no power, but they should not give up or disband. I believe that the United Nations may be an idealistic group, we need to have a group that can maintain peace in the future. I believe this because as we get more technologically advanced, more countries are going to have large-scale weapons. No country (besides China) could afford to go to a large War right now. Still, most countries around the world have the standing militias and weaponry to be fighting in large battles in a week. With all this being said, I believe the United Nations needs to find a way to enforce some of their regulations without the help of foreign governments. This would increase their prestige and presence around the world. In the end, I do believe it will take a "superpower" nation, like the United States, to formally recognize their presence before they are cemented as THE peacemaking authority on the planet. I do no think the United States should be the country to cement them as the authority, I believe this endorsement will have to come from England and a couple other European Countries. This will lead to allied countries of these nations also recognizing the United Nations power.

Resources

http://www.un.org/en/

http://www.undispatch.com/

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/united_nations_problems.htm

http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/?articleid=740

http://www.foxnews.com/

http://www.cnn.com/

http://www.dadalos.org/uno_int/grundkurs_5/frieden.htm

http://find.galegroup.com/srcx/retrieve.do?subjectParam=Locale%2528en%252C%252C%2529%253AFQE%253D%2528su%252CNone%252C14%2529United%2BNations%2524&contentSet=GSRC&sort=Relevance&tabID=T001&sgCurrentPosition=0&subject

http://school.eb.com/all/eb/article-9074310?query=United%20Nations&ct=null

http://school.eb.com/eb/art-68877/First-session-of-the-United-Nations-General-Assembly-January-10?&articleTypeId=1

http://en.rian.ru/world/20091019/156523849.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2192718/

http://www.slate.com/id/2192718/

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/default.htmhttp://ppjg.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/united-nations-plans-to-emerge-as-the-controlling-government-how-declaring-a-pandemic-enlarges-the-united-nations-power/

http://blog.case.edu/case-news/2006/07/26/case_law_student_working_with_united_nations_researches_issues_related_to_accused_international_war_criminals

http://hubpages.com/hub/The-practical-problems-faced-by-the-UN

http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm

http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/un_paradox_4073.jsp

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1103/p02s01-woam.html

http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/issues/peacekeeping/

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/

http://find.galegroup.com/srcx/retrieve.do?subjectParam=Locale%2528en%252C%252C%2529%253AFQE%253D%2528su%252CNone%252C14%2529United%2BNations%2524&contentSet=GSRC&sort=Relevance&tabID=T001&sgCurrentPosition=0&subjectAction=DISPLAY_SUBJECTS&prodId=SRC-1&searchId=R2&currentPosition=1&userGroupName=conc67094&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&sgHitCountType=None&qrySerId=Locale(en,,):FQE%3D(SU,None,14)United+Nations$&inPS=true&searchType=BasicSearchForm&displaySubject=&docId=EJ2104241292&docType=GSRC

United Nations and Iran

"MOSCOW, October 19 (RIA Novosti) - The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog said that Monday's talks between Iran and world powers on a new uranium enrichment deal have started positively."

I read that in the news today, and I can only wonder, "How is the United Nations going to screw this meeting up?" I now realize where the United Nations screwed up, they invited France. Iran currently produces low-enriched uranium. The United Nations is now trying to get higher-enriched fuel to support the Health Research in Tehran.

Personally, I am hoping this this conference goes well because the good that can come out of this could lead towards conversation about Iran and their development of Nuclear Weapons. I believe that the current problems with Iran could be resolved if Iran and the United States would sit down and have someone mediate their arguments. The problem is that there is no authority with enough power to mediate between the two and be able to enforce their decision. I think that if this meeting goes over well, the United Nations could grow in power and prestige.

The United Nations is making strides to be able to mediate between the countries, but the countries should also send notable members of their government to these meetings. There should never be a United Nations meeting where Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or Barak Obama is not present. Those three individuals are the three most notable members of our federal Government. For the purpose of name and face recognition one of those people should be present at all meetings. It is also important for President Obama to have meaningful visits to the leaders of foreign nations. Obama has met with many world leaders, but in my opinion many of those meetings accomplished nothing. When Obama goes to visit countries he should have a list of goals that he wants to accomplish.

All in all, these meetings that will take place for the next few days could set a new tone that could lead to a lot of good work...or the United Nations could screw it up once again.

Here is one of my favorite Poltical Cartoons. Drawn by Gary Varvel.

United Nations Debt

Throughout the 1960's to the 1980’s, the UN run up debts that were close $1 billion. In 1986, America refused to pay 50% of its annual contribution in protest at the influence newly emerging nations had or were attempting to get. America saw that a large nations were the nations that were paying a majority of the budget and believed that whoever is paying more should more input. Look at my previous post for a quote from and American Congressman that could be related. America pointed out that 85% of the UN’s budget was paid by just 20 nations yet many smaller nations were trying to reform the way the UN was run (especially its voting system) without making the same financial commitment to the UN. This sparked a series of problems, which lead to the USA and USSR going head to head in the climax of the Cold War. The USSR was slowly turning bordering countries to a Communist Government, but all of these Nations were very poor and unorganized. The USSR would push for the smaller Nations to get bigger input so that the USSR could use their authority to dictate how the smaller nations would vote. This lead to a period of the 1980's where the USSR would veto anything the United States proposed and the United States would veto anything the USSR proposed. There is not an official name for this period of the United Nations, but all we know is that nothing got accomplished and the debt increased. I believe that the United Nations should figure out a way to resolve these debts problems and, once again, the voting problems. I believe that is the United Nations is going to tax, every nation should be taxed the same percentage. I believe the five nations in the security council already have enough power, but the other big nations who do not have security council power (Germany, Canada, Italy, etc.) should play a larger role in the United Nations because they play a larger role in the World.

Enforcement and Voting

As I sit here eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich I am hit with an epiphany, I realize another problem with the United Nations. The United Nations is set up where every Country gets a vote and they all count the same. This is much like the United States Senate, where everyone is represented equally. What the United Nations is lacking is another branch where population, involvement, or size allows bigger Countries to have more of a say. Now, I do not think that the United Nations should model themselves after the United States, but it should do something to fix the problems it is facing. The United Nations decided against moving troops into Iraq and instead sent "troops" (people that can show badges, but cannot shoot guns) into Darfur. The United States sent troops into Iraq after the United Nations choose not to, and has not sent Troops into Darfur. There has been considerably more positive effects that have came out of Iraq than Darfur in the last couple of years if you ask me. The United Nations should try to structure itself so that they can impose whatever they set out to do. In 1985 a U.S Congressman said this about the United Nations, "Voting rights (in the UN) should be proportionate to the contribution of each member state to the budget of the UN and its specialised agencies." Now, I do not necessarily agree with this statement, but it shows that the United Nations has been getting retrogradations for change for over 20 years.

Basic Information

The United Nations was signed into charter on June 26, 1945 in San Francisco. The original charter was signed by 50 nations, including the "Big Four" (United States, Britain, Russia, and China). Now there are 192 members in the United Nations. There is a Security Council within the United Nations that has 15 members. There are 5 permanent members (Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States) and 10 non-permanent members (currently: Austria, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Japan, Libya, Mexico, Turkey, Uganda and Vietnam). The 5 permanent members hold veto power over the others, giving them a great deal of authority.

In recent years the United Nations has come under attack for not being able to enforce any rules and regulations they impose. Some believe the United Nations to be a waste because if there is no way of enforcing laws, then there will be no way to make nations adhere to them. Others believe that Nations should not undermine the authority of the United Nations. Many countries, including the United States, have acted when the United Nations has voted not to. In the United States politicians have addressed these Issues with the United Nations. Some believe that in order to be looked at more favorably by our peer nations we (the United States) should adhere to the policies of the United Nations. Others believe that if the United Nations is not going to act on our behalf, that the United States should take the initiative and act.

Readers should think about what the United States should do if the United Nations refuses to act. Does the United Nations have our better interest in mind? Should we undermine the authority of the United Nations? Can the United Nations be trusted to make some decisions for us? How will the United Nations enforce the decisions that they make. Lastly, is the United Nations capable of managing such a large world as ours?

What do you get out of this political cartoon?