• Saudi Arabia turns down Security Council nomination, demands reform of the UN
    40 replies, posted
[QUOTE=agentalexandre;42563012]I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, the Saudis are right and the UN really does a reform, its simply not doing its job properly. On the other, the Saudis aren't ones to talk when they have done fuck all for the Syrian situation and they still don't do anything about the human rights issues in their own country.[/QUOTE] Have you done anything for Syria? Heres the thing, the UN is an organization specifically made to help in these situations while Saudi Arabia is a country. The only ones that would have done anything was the US and they didnt even really do anything.
[QUOTE=laserguided;42565749]The UN should be demanding reform of Saudi Arabia.[/QUOTE] Dude, they banned slavery in the 1960s. Give them time.
This is the most utterly self-righteous politicking ever. Saudi-Arabia could do a lot more on the council that it can making cheap-shots at its integrity.
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;42563479]Get rid of permanent membership ala GB,Russia,France, and the USA Then there can be progress[/QUOTE] That's also the countries that contribute a combined 40.36% of the UN's funding, the US alone contributes 22%. With numbers like that, you won't get very far.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;42572043]That's also the countries that contribute a combined 40.36% of the UN's funding, the US alone contributes 22%. With numbers like that, you won't get very far.[/QUOTE] It would be a dickish move to remove funding just because they were removed from the Security Council. If anything then, those countries are basically purchasing the right to do whatever.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42572059]It would be a dickish move to remove funding just because they were removed from the Security Council. If anything then, those countries are basically purchasing the right to do whatever.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't put it passed China, Russia, or the US to do that. There's already a faint anti-UN attitude among the right-wing in the US.
There doesn't need to be any additions or removals from the Security Council. The veto power just needs to go away. Then the U.N. will be more than just an "angry letter" joke.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42572260]There doesn't need to be any additions or removals from the Security Council. The veto power just needs to go away. Then the U.N. will be more than just an "angry letter" joke.[/QUOTE] But at that point the powers that aren't getting their way will probably just pull out altogether. The ultimate problem with the UN is that it will only have as much power as the member nations give it, and national interests are always going to come first over the decisions of an international body. It would take a number of very dedicated leaders to give the UN real authority and I would say we're nowhere close to that point.
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;42572377]But at that point the powers that aren't getting their way will probably just pull out altogether. The ultimate problem with the UN is that it will only have as much power as the member nations give it, and national interests are always going to come first over the decisions of an international body. It would take a number of very dedicated leaders to give the UN real authority and I would say we're nowhere close to that point.[/QUOTE] And therein lies the problem. It doesn't take much thought to discover that the U.N., created by the great powers and victors of World War 2, was formed solely to protect their own interests.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42572059] If anything then, those countries are basically purchasing the right to do whatever.[/QUOTE] Not giving the most powerful countries special privileges might lead to them just abandoning the whole organization.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.