Bolivia calls to end UN Security Council at G77 summit - Polidicks

[IMG]http://static.latercera.com/20140415/1928561.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]A summit of G77 leaders plus China kicked off deliberations on a new world order Sunday, June 15, with a call by Bolivia's President Evo Morales to eliminate the UN Security Council. Developing countries, including some 30 heads of government and representatives of more than 100 nations – about two-thirds of the world's countries – gathered to demand a more fair new world order. But Morales, a leader of Latin America's hard left and the group's current president, called for "eliminating world hierarchies" altogether. "The UN Security Council should be eliminated, because it has encouraged wars and invasions by imperial powers to appropriate natural resources of invaded countries," he said. Morales, the first native-Indian leader of one of Latin America's poorest countries, also called for "replacing finance institutions like the IMF" with other institutions, like a bank that would unite the world's developing nations, largely clustered closer to the Equator. Morales also emphasized that integral development includes "not only a balance between human beings, but balance and harmony with Mother Earth." [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.rappler.com/world/regions/latin-america/60668-bolivia-calls-end-un-security-council-g77-summit[/url] [url]http://main.omanobserver.om/?p=88425[/url] [editline]15th June 2014[/editline] WTF, As it appeared to me 2 times the same news?, Just touch me edit subject and appeared the other?

gg bro

he's got a point, but he missed the entire point of the security council which is to make it so that the nuclear armed world-buster states can't be pushed into doing anything by the U.N. while its totally useless, the veto is the ultimate check because it prevents hostilities from U.N. decisions

[quote]hard left[/quote] [quote]because it has encouraged wars and invasions by imperial powers[/quote] i had a good laugh

[quote]Morales, the first native-Indian leader of one of Latin America's poorest countries, also called for "replacing finance institutions like the IMF" with other institutions, like a bank that would unite the world's developing nations, largely clustered closer to the Equator.[/quote] isn't that like the entire point of the IMF, to provide some level of finance?

[QUOTE=Sableye;45115806]he's got a point, but he missed the entire point of the security council which is to make it so that the nuclear armed world-buster states can't be pushed into doing anything by the U.N. while its totally useless, the veto is the ultimate check because it prevents hostilities from U.N. decisions[/QUOTE] The veto is ultimately good. The UN is useless if Nuclear armed states have their power subverted by the UN. China, Russia and the USA would literally disregard everything the UN said if they didn't have the power of veto. They already disregard somethings, imagine if they didn't have the power of veto. The UN is meant to stop conflicts by discussing them before they escalate. If the most powerful countries in the world can't come to some agreement and can have their judgements overruled by some bureaucrats then the UN as a whole is useless. I can see where Bolivia is coming from, but ultimately not all states are created equally.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45115884]The veto is ultimately good. The UN is useless if Nuclear armed states have their power subverted by the UN. China, Russia and the USA would literally disregard everything the UN said if they didn't have the power of veto. The UN is meant to stop conflicts by discussing them before they escalate. If the most powerful countries in the world can't come to some agreement and can have their judgements overruled by some bureaucrats then the UN as a whole is useless. I can see where Bolivia is coming from, but ultimately not all countries are created equally.[/QUOTE] Honestly, countries have more power than others. Cameroon doesn't have the same voice as Germany or the UK and it shouldn't be treated as if they do.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;45115900]Honestly, countries have more power than others. Cameroon doesn't have the same voice as Germany or the UK and it shouldn't be treated as if they do.[/QUOTE] That's the point though, the security councils permanent members are 5 of the most powerful countries. They are held to a higher regard than other countries by means of the veto.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45115911]That's the point though, the security councils permanent members are 5 of the most powerful countries. They are held to a higher regard than other countries by means of the veto.[/QUOTE] Mhm. I'm justifying it. It's a necessary evil because equality between countries doesn't really make sense when the world is more than just a silly thing where everyone has a voice.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;45115926]Mhm. I'm justifying it. It's a necessary evil because equality between countries doesn't really make sense when the world is more than just a silly thing where everyone has a voice.[/QUOTE] With that said, we are eventually going to come upon a point where a country is going to need it's veto power revoked, or have a new country added. I wouldn't pretend to guess who, when, or where, but it's eventually going to happen if the UN doesn't collapse beforehand. I'm actually not even sure if there is a provision for this at the moment. Anyone actually know?

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;45116205]With that said, we are eventually going to come upon a point where a country is going to need it's veto power revoked, or have a new country added. I wouldn't pretend to guess who, when, or where, but it's eventually going to happen if the UN doesn't collapse beforehand. I'm actually not even sure if there is a provision for this at the moment. Anyone actually know?[/QUOTE] You'd have to amend the UN Charter, which requires approval from two-thirds of the General Assembly and all of the permanent Security Council members. Permanent members can therefore veto any attempt to remove their veto, or to strip them of permanent membership.

[QUOTE=smurfy;45116241]You'd have to amend the UN Charter, which requires approval from two-thirds of the General Assembly and all of the Permanent 5[/QUOTE] it could be possible though

[QUOTE=Sableye;45116267]it could be possible though[/QUOTE] You edited your post but what you put originally was right. In 1971 they did swap China's permanent seat from the Republic of China to the People's Republic of China with an un-vetoable [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Assembly_Resolution_2758]General Assembly resolution[/url]. That was a bit of a special case though; they didn't remove the ROC from the Security Council and bring in the PRC, they just decreed that the PRC is the rightful holder of the Chinese seat. I guess in theory you could try some shit like 'India is the rightful holder of America's seat' but it would be unlikely to work.

I think it would be interesting to have a system similar to the USA where there are two houses, one house with a set number of representatives for every country so like each country gets one person and then one house with the number of representatives proportional to its population or some other factor like economic might. Obviously don't copy straight from the US but a two house legislature or something similar would be a better way to solve the problem as more powerful countries still get a greater say in house but it's even in the other house.

[QUOTE=smurfy;45116241]Permanent members can therefore veto any attempt to remove their veto, or to strip them of permanent membership.[/QUOTE] The more I learn about the UN the more of an omnipresent catastrafuck it appears to be.

[QUOTE=Vitalogy;45116969]I think it would be interesting to have a system similar to the USA where there are two houses, one house with a set number of representatives for every country so like each country gets one person and then one house with the number of representatives proportional to its population or some other factor like economic might. Obviously don't copy straight from the US but a two house legislature or something similar would be a better way to solve the problem as more powerful countries still get a greater say in house but it's even in the other house.[/QUOTE] There are proposals for an [url=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly]elected UN Parliament[/url] but it's extremely unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future

[QUOTE=smurfy;45117189]There are proposals for an [url=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Parliamentary_Assembly]elected UN Parliament[/url] but it's extremely unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future[/QUOTE] I would hate that. Already hate the circus of what-the-hell-am-I-even-really-voting-on that is the EUP elections. Whatever happened to a good, old autocracy where the big men knew what was best for us and we just did as told, or else? Those were good times...

Elected UN Parliament would be the stupidest shit.