5 ms·

The biggest reform is to dissolve the security council and make it truly democratic.

gus_massa 4y ago
They have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons doesn't make their opinion right, but it's difficult to argue with them. Even if you are right, they have nuclear weapons. I think we should add India and Pakistan instead.
- SanjayMehta 4y ago
  Germany and Japan as well. Notice how the UNSC was just the winners of WW-2.
- bergenty 4y ago
  I agree about India. Pakistan doesn’t make sense besides being a nuclear power.
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    50 years of begging to be let in only to have your worst enemy tailgate behind you. Poetically cruel
colechristensen 4y ago
But it’s not democratic, it is for show. Just an abstraction that organizes diplomacy, a method for legitimizing and coming to agreements or having conflicts with less chaos. Let us not give up our sovereignty to a small group of people very far from being accountable to the people they represent, let us not chase world government. If you dissolve the security council., the important members just walk away. The UN is a game played by major powers in order to achieve increased stability. It is not a world government and won’t be blind to the actual source and distribution of world power.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rich_sasha 4y ago
UN isn't like a court of justice, or parliament. It's more like a council of thieves. It's the only premise on which you can have US, France, Russia and North Korea at one table together. So the the "chief thieves" run the show, not because it's fair but because they run the show, and other thieves play as these allow them. The veto is just a formalization of the fact that these countries will happily stop your plans by force, even if they are legitimate plans.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  I agree with this cynical take, but the OP is still correct. The same process can be seen at work in the history of democracy and human rights within countries that transitioned from royalty and aristocracy.
  - hulitu 4y ago
    Then we need lobbysts and revolving doors with the government.
  - rich_sasha 4y ago
    Huh, not trying to be cynical, realist perhaps, but point taken. I think a UN that takes the "chief thief" rights away from UN council members would be even more dysfunctional than status quo. The moment US, Russia or China are supposedly bound by a democratic vote of other countries, they are out. The price for representation is impotence.

They have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons doesn't make their opinion right, but it's difficult to argue with them. Even if you are right, they have nuclear weapons. I think we should add India and Pakistan instead.

SanjayMehta 4y ago
Germany and Japan as well. Notice how the UNSC was just the winners of WW-2.
bergenty 4y ago
I agree about India. Pakistan doesn’t make sense besides being a nuclear power.
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  50 years of begging to be let in only to have your worst enemy tailgate behind you. Poetically cruel

colechristensen 4y ago

But it’s not democratic, it is for show. Just an abstraction that organizes diplomacy, a method for legitimizing and coming to agreements or having conflicts with less chaos. Let us not give up our sovereignty to a small group of people very far from being accountable to the people they represent, let us not chase world government. If you dissolve the security council., the important members just walk away. The UN is a game played by major powers in order to achieve increased stability. It is not a world government and won’t be blind to the actual source and distribution of world power.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rich_sasha 4y ago

UN isn't like a court of justice, or parliament. It's more like a council of thieves. It's the only premise on which you can have US, France, Russia and North Korea at one table together. So the the "chief thieves" run the show, not because it's fair but because they run the show, and other thieves play as these allow them. The veto is just a formalization of the fact that these countries will happily stop your plans by force, even if they are legitimate plans.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
I agree with this cynical take, but the OP is still correct. The same process can be seen at work in the history of democracy and human rights within countries that transitioned from royalty and aristocracy.
- hulitu 4y ago
  Then we need lobbysts and revolving doors with the government.
- rich_sasha 4y ago
  Huh, not trying to be cynical, realist perhaps, but point taken. I think a UN that takes the "chief thief" rights away from UN council members would be even more dysfunctional than status quo. The moment US, Russia or China are supposedly bound by a democratic vote of other countries, they are out. The price for representation is impotence.