4 ms·

Does the UN still exist?

EGreg 6y ago
This is why we should work to transform the UN Peacekepeers into a militarized world police, composed of volunteers from countries all over the world. While simultaneously drawing down and disarming the world’s militaries. UN inspectors would be allowed into any member country, to inspect potential human rights violations, nuclear and chemical weapons development, and large environmental hazards. They need to have teeth to enforce things. The Peacekeepers should be a decentralized organization with only three main rules: 1. Your only job is to defuse existing conflicts and violence, and force warring sides to resort to using courts and diplomacy. 2. Anyone in the organization found breaking the first rule (using force to take sides or escalate a conflict, like Norriega) will be put on trial and executed if found guilty. 3. Any alumnus of the organization breaking the first rule is likewise hunted down, captured and put on trial. The only difference is, if they are not on active duty, they aren’t even empowered to carry out Rule #1 fully but must call on-duty reinforcements. Don’t like it - don’t join the peacekeepers. Every cadet would be trained in these three rules, so no one can take over the peacekeepers and rule the world. And there is a set of rules that all countries can abide by: 4. If there is a sectarian conflict between groups A, B and C in a region, only peacekeepers from countries and backgrounds with no serious stake in who wins can intervene. Others are sanctioned / excluded from that conflict etc. 5. The peacekeepers wear a specific and unmistakable white-themed uniform. Anyone in any country caught impersonating their uniform would constitute a criminal offense, like impersonating a police officer. 6. They all wear body cameras, they present themselves and warn any armed combatants or terrorists to put down their weapons or they will shoot to kill. They are also able to pre-emtively kill in certain situations where they can prove massive harm (eg a bomb) and that a warning could have allowed it to happen. This monopoly on force would probably lead to a net reduction in harm, assuming it can’t be taken over or corrupted.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kelchm 6y ago
  >> This is why we should work to transform the UN Peacekepeers into a militarized world police, composed of volunteers from countries all over the world. While simultaneously drawing down and disarming the world’s militaries. It’s honestly terrifying to me that anyone thinks that this is a sound idea that would lead to a better world in the long run. If there is anything that human history has proven, it’s that you cannot prevent corruption and that the centralization of power only further incentivizes corruption.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    Also, how would one effectively verify that militaries were disarming? History is littered with examples of militaries not actually doing so when they said they would.
- ajmurmann 6y ago
  While I am likewise enthralled by this general idea, it hinges on rule 2 and 3 being executed in practice. My prediction is that that part would either never happen or deteriorate quickly. Instead we'd get strong internal loyalty above all else, as we are seeing with the police in many countries.
- skinkestek 6y ago
  Upvoted but disagree strongly. My feeling is it will be corrupted, and the only thing worse than multiple dangerous governments is one single dangerous government. In fact I'd probably rather have every country introduce 2nd amendment rules than accept this.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  I don't get why you're downvoted, I agree with your idea. It's where we should and must move towards anyway, the time of nations squabbling is over if we want to tackle the crises of the future: climate, water access, food access, poverty, droughts, space exploration, and if they're turning out to be real, dealing with non-terran species. The only open question I have - who decides upon engaging? The UN Security Council which should deal with issues is effectively gridlocked as the Russians and Chinese veto everything. The UN General Assembly isn't that much trustworthy either, given how many countries would vote an instant Yes on the question if Israel should be sanctioned. In the end we need some form of "global democracy" with strong protections of individual rights.
  - EGreg 6y ago
    Well, in my vision (after going many rounds with a friend designing this), the whole enterprise would be decentralized, and as much as possible rules #2 and #3 would be drilled into the new recruits, and there would be term limits etc. To make it as hard as possible to take over the organization. As for who makes a decision to go into a country ... well, if you're squads of people from Peru and Japan etc. and there's escalating sectarian violence in Iraq, then you are welcome to go there. It's all decentralized. It's sort of like "actors" in Erlang, each running their own program and enforcing on others. The only thing that's sort of more centralized would be the due process for those peacekeepers or groups of peacekeepers who violate rule #1. Besides this, peacekeepers would try to screen out peacekeepers who travel to an area where they are found to have a significant stake in the outcome. Of course, this force would not need any weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, etc. All those could be gradually destroyed by the various nations. They would, however, have crowd control non-lethal weaponry. My point is that from a utilitarian point of view, it's even better to kill all the belligerents early (after warning them) than let the thing escalate into, say, the Russian Revolution where 20 million people died in fighting. Just the chilling effect alone that "violence only backfires" (analogue of "crime doesn't pay") will deter many from joining the escalation. As opposed to now where the US "world police" merely takes one side and arms them to demolish the other.
    - Shared404 6y ago
- ars 6y ago
  So what you are saying is that to win a conflict a country must simply be sneaky and fast. And then accuse the other side of resorting to violence when they protest? For example Russia and Crimea - Russia took it over with little violence, but to undo that requires violence, which your rules do not permit.
- ajnin 6y ago
  1. Where would this military police force take its legitimacy from ? The only legitimacy there is is when people get together and agree to institute a force to police them. That means democracy. Since the UN is currently very far removed from the will of the individual citizen of the World, I think your proposal would require a deep change of governance of the UN to include more democratic processes. 2. This proposal assumes that there is a single set of values and rules that can be applied to everyone. I don't think this is actually true. The world currently allows several value systems to exist simultaneously, which can all be valid. Your proposal would raise a single value system above all others. How do we chose which one ? 3. The further the government is removed from the citizens, the less it cares about their actual needs. Special measures would need to be taken to make sure that police force actually serves the interests of the people. I don't think the current forms of democracy actually work in that case, when so many people and cultures are involved, you can't be satisfied with a majority rule.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  The idea of concentrating more power into one set of hands right now strikes me as absolutely insane.
- cracksmoka420 6y ago
  This is a hilarious post. A pipe dream that has nothing to do with the topic at hand
- AmericaFuckYeah 6y ago
  You are basically describing a global empire, under false pretenses, but you are not exactly explaining who you are and where you are coming from. It's important for people to know who rules over them.
  - EGreg 6y ago
    Not an empire. Just a world police force that is used to defuse any flares up of violence and force people to use their local courts and diplomacy. It doesn’t set any rules globally for other countries.
- 0xy 6y ago
  I can think of nothing worse than rewarding the UN peacekeepers with more power and weapons after they've been repeatedly exposed as child sex abusers. A UN blue hat more often than not means they're coming to your poor country to rape children and trade food aid for sexual favors, not that they're there to help.

This is why we should work to transform the UN Peacekepeers into a militarized world police, composed of volunteers from countries all over the world. While simultaneously drawing down and disarming the world’s militaries. UN inspectors would be allowed into any member country, to inspect potential human rights violations, nuclear and chemical weapons development, and large environmental hazards. They need to have teeth to enforce things. The Peacekeepers should be a decentralized organization with only three main rules: 1. Your only job is to defuse existing conflicts and violence, and force warring sides to resort to using courts and diplomacy. 2. Anyone in the organization found breaking the first rule (using force to take sides or escalate a conflict, like Norriega) will be put on trial and executed if found guilty. 3. Any alumnus of the organization breaking the first rule is likewise hunted down, captured and put on trial. The only difference is, if they are not on active duty, they aren’t even empowered to carry out Rule #1 fully but must call on-duty reinforcements. Don’t like it - don’t join the peacekeepers. Every cadet would be trained in these three rules, so no one can take over the peacekeepers and rule the world. And there is a set of rules that all countries can abide by: 4. If there is a sectarian conflict between groups A, B and C in a region, only peacekeepers from countries and backgrounds with no serious stake in who wins can intervene. Others are sanctioned / excluded from that conflict etc. 5. The peacekeepers wear a specific and unmistakable white-themed uniform. Anyone in any country caught impersonating their uniform would constitute a criminal offense, like impersonating a police officer. 6. They all wear body cameras, they present themselves and warn any armed combatants or terrorists to put down their weapons or they will shoot to kill. They are also able to pre-emtively kill in certain situations where they can prove massive harm (eg a bomb) and that a warning could have allowed it to happen. This monopoly on force would probably lead to a net reduction in harm, assuming it can’t be taken over or corrupted.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kelchm 6y ago
>> This is why we should work to transform the UN Peacekepeers into a militarized world police, composed of volunteers from countries all over the world. While simultaneously drawing down and disarming the world’s militaries. It’s honestly terrifying to me that anyone thinks that this is a sound idea that would lead to a better world in the long run. If there is anything that human history has proven, it’s that you cannot prevent corruption and that the centralization of power only further incentivizes corruption.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  Also, how would one effectively verify that militaries were disarming? History is littered with examples of militaries not actually doing so when they said they would.
ajmurmann 6y ago
While I am likewise enthralled by this general idea, it hinges on rule 2 and 3 being executed in practice. My prediction is that that part would either never happen or deteriorate quickly. Instead we'd get strong internal loyalty above all else, as we are seeing with the police in many countries.
skinkestek 6y ago
Upvoted but disagree strongly. My feeling is it will be corrupted, and the only thing worse than multiple dangerous governments is one single dangerous government. In fact I'd probably rather have every country introduce 2nd amendment rules than accept this.
mschuster91 6y ago
I don't get why you're downvoted, I agree with your idea. It's where we should and must move towards anyway, the time of nations squabbling is over if we want to tackle the crises of the future: climate, water access, food access, poverty, droughts, space exploration, and if they're turning out to be real, dealing with non-terran species. The only open question I have - who decides upon engaging? The UN Security Council which should deal with issues is effectively gridlocked as the Russians and Chinese veto everything. The UN General Assembly isn't that much trustworthy either, given how many countries would vote an instant Yes on the question if Israel should be sanctioned. In the end we need some form of "global democracy" with strong protections of individual rights.
- EGreg 6y ago
  Well, in my vision (after going many rounds with a friend designing this), the whole enterprise would be decentralized, and as much as possible rules #2 and #3 would be drilled into the new recruits, and there would be term limits etc. To make it as hard as possible to take over the organization. As for who makes a decision to go into a country ... well, if you're squads of people from Peru and Japan etc. and there's escalating sectarian violence in Iraq, then you are welcome to go there. It's all decentralized. It's sort of like "actors" in Erlang, each running their own program and enforcing on others. The only thing that's sort of more centralized would be the due process for those peacekeepers or groups of peacekeepers who violate rule #1. Besides this, peacekeepers would try to screen out peacekeepers who travel to an area where they are found to have a significant stake in the outcome. Of course, this force would not need any weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, etc. All those could be gradually destroyed by the various nations. They would, however, have crowd control non-lethal weaponry. My point is that from a utilitarian point of view, it's even better to kill all the belligerents early (after warning them) than let the thing escalate into, say, the Russian Revolution where 20 million people died in fighting. Just the chilling effect alone that "violence only backfires" (analogue of "crime doesn't pay") will deter many from joining the escalation. As opposed to now where the US "world police" merely takes one side and arms them to demolish the other.
  - Shared404 6y ago
ars 6y ago
So what you are saying is that to win a conflict a country must simply be sneaky and fast. And then accuse the other side of resorting to violence when they protest? For example Russia and Crimea - Russia took it over with little violence, but to undo that requires violence, which your rules do not permit.
ajnin 6y ago
1. Where would this military police force take its legitimacy from ? The only legitimacy there is is when people get together and agree to institute a force to police them. That means democracy. Since the UN is currently very far removed from the will of the individual citizen of the World, I think your proposal would require a deep change of governance of the UN to include more democratic processes. 2. This proposal assumes that there is a single set of values and rules that can be applied to everyone. I don't think this is actually true. The world currently allows several value systems to exist simultaneously, which can all be valid. Your proposal would raise a single value system above all others. How do we chose which one ? 3. The further the government is removed from the citizens, the less it cares about their actual needs. Special measures would need to be taken to make sure that police force actually serves the interests of the people. I don't think the current forms of democracy actually work in that case, when so many people and cultures are involved, you can't be satisfied with a majority rule.
ashtonkem 6y ago
The idea of concentrating more power into one set of hands right now strikes me as absolutely insane.
cracksmoka420 6y ago
This is a hilarious post. A pipe dream that has nothing to do with the topic at hand
AmericaFuckYeah 6y ago
You are basically describing a global empire, under false pretenses, but you are not exactly explaining who you are and where you are coming from. It's important for people to know who rules over them.
- EGreg 6y ago
  Not an empire. Just a world police force that is used to defuse any flares up of violence and force people to use their local courts and diplomacy. It doesn’t set any rules globally for other countries.
0xy 6y ago
I can think of nothing worse than rewarding the UN peacekeepers with more power and weapons after they've been repeatedly exposed as child sex abusers. A UN blue hat more often than not means they're coming to your poor country to rape children and trade food aid for sexual favors, not that they're there to help.