reforms for the united nations organization

[jamahir]

i ask that we talk as being human rather than people who were born in some nation or religion.

immediate problems in the uno

1. the uno security council ( uno-sc ) is undemocratic... how can there be only a few "permanent" members who have veto voice and others don't... let us not bring the argument of nuclear powers and those not... i don't see why great nations like venezuela and syria are not "permanent" members... i don't see why the criminal regimes in usa and britain are "permanent" members.

2. the uno-sc as proxy vote... it is clear that some self-proposed candidates for permanent membership have been clearly in the western bloc openly since korea war... also how is the permanency being decided... if germany and india can be made permanent member, why not venezuela, cuba, north korea, syria or pakistan... it is undemocratic not to do so.

3. the uno as launch pad... western bloc has launched imperialistic and genocidal wars against many nations for decades, using uno as cover for their societal murders, whether in north korea, whether in libya... this they did disregarding the wishes of the other uno members, including in the uno-sc... how can some uno members arranging hanging of the proud president of another uno member nations... how can this unjust act be done and forgotten by the arrangers and their puppets... how can the western bloc be allowed to build up war against great countries through fake allegations of "human rights violations" and "the regime is killing civilians", and then proceed to use depleted-uranium weapons or terrorist proxies or direct large-scale invasions... it is clear that uno secretary-generals have generally tended to advance the cause of the capitalist western bloc, despite seeing genocide by the same western bloc... this must be rejected.

4. what is so special about usa that the uno headquarters should be based there... it is strange to base uno hq in usa knowing fully of the imperialistic wars usa military and allies have launched over the decades.


the way to work

1. since it is proved that the uno-sc is undemocratic, ineffective and proxy for western bloc, there is no point in continuing the uno-sc... it must be therefore terminated... all military decisions must be taken in the uno general assembly, with proper debate based on common sense and consensus, not on unilateral decisions based on fake media campaigns and induced terrorist activity.

2. all illegal wars launched by the western bloc since 2011 must be stopped immediately... the occupation government ( regime ) in libya must be arrested for imposing criminal rule on a people who reject their rule... western forces and intelligence activity against syria must be withdrawn... syrian military should be allowed to eradicate the criminals who invaded their country in 2011... same is the case with the western proxy war against venezuela.

3. the uno headquarters must be shifted immediately to another more responsible nation, like russia.

4. the uno must create panels for kashmir, kurdistan, korea ( edit : and israel/palestine )... these four issues hold solution to much peace in the world.

5. the uno must create a panel for arriving upon the scientific political system for all humanity for a scientific and just and equality-based human near-future.


conclusion

these are the real urgent reforms for the uno... some of them come from the uno-ga speech of muammar gaddafi if you have watched it ( below, full )... if they are not acceptable, then there is no need for uno to exist in its present form.

------------

@Hindustani78 @Norwegian @levina @Kashmiri Nationalist @Pakistani shaheens @vostok @Syrian Lion @Mahmoud_EGY @Ceylal @senheiser @XenoEnsi-14 @Solomon2 @C130 @Kashmirisoilder @Nihonjin1051 @Chinese-Dragon and everyone else.

 

[Lord ZeN]

if germany and india can be made permanent member, why not venezuela, cuba, north korea, syria or pakistan... it is undemocratic not to do so.

Why not make every 193 UN member nation a permanent member with each one having a veto power ?

 

[jamahir]

Why not make every 193 UN member nation a permanent member with each one having a veto power ?

exactly... that would be democratic... and that would remove need for any special overlord "security council" to exist... all decisions can be taken in the uno general assembly itself.

--------

@Blue_Eyes forgot to tag you in the op.

 

[Lord ZeN]

exactly... that would be democratic... and that would remove need for any special overlord "security council" to exist... all decisions can be taken in the uno general assembly itself.
@Blue_Eyes forgot to tag you in the op.

Then how exactly will the Security council work ? One of the main aim of Security council is to take action against rouge states.

 

[blood]

LOL good luck with that

 

[jamahir]

Then how exactly will the Security council work ?

work?? start with a clean slate... terminate "security council", which as gaddafi said is really a "terrorist council"... i have meant this in section "the way to work", point #1... like i said before all military decisions must be taken in the uno-ga.

One of the main aim of Security council is take action against rouge state.

define "rogue state"... and please do read the op fully... i have made some questions about this.

LOL good luck with that

surely, this is long needed... there must be a people's movement for this.

 

[Lord ZeN]

work?? start with a clean slate... terminate "security council", which as gaddafi said is really a "terrorist council"... i have meant this in section "the way to work", point #1... like i said before all military decisions must be taken in the uno-ga.

So you want security council to be disbanded & replaced by general assembly just because Gaddafi called it a terrorist council.

 

[jamahir]

So you want security council to be disbanded & replaced by general assembly just because Gaddafi called it a terrorist council.

i call for that and so did he because it is a reasonable demand.

 

[blood]

surely, this is long needed... there must be a people's movement for this.

countries like india and china won't be a part of it since china already a member while india is on the verge to become one.

you talk about kashmir support , there itself you loose 100 crore people(india) , chinese won't support this nonsense bcz they have their own mess in tibet . US & UK will never and neither will their allies , that makes nearly 80% of the world .

from where are you going to garner support for your crap fantasies .

 

[Lord ZeN]

i call for that and so did he because it is a reasonable demand.

Back your claims of Security council being equivalent to a terrorist council.

define "rogue state"... and please do read the op fully... i have made some questions about this.

A state which involves in State sponsored terrorism to intentionally murder hundreds of innocent people.

 

[Kambojaric]

Well its clear that the UN and especially the security council as it stands is not in touch with today's geopolitical realities. France and Britain will for example on any serious issue vote what the US tells them to vote. As such their vote is already represented by the US and their presence is not needed in the security council. They should be replaced by one member from Africa (South Africa/Nigera) and one from a Muslim country (Turkey/Pakistan/Indonesia). A further seat should be added for South America possibly Argentina or Brazil. This makeup although not perfect is far more representative of todays world order than the current security council make up whose members were chosen to reflect the post WW II order of the world.

 

[Razia Sultana]

UN, per se, has no influence if sovereign nations don't agree to it. But mere sovereignty does not make a nation influential and hence it would be wrong to give equal status to 2 nations based on sovereignty. Today, a tiny european nation is more powerful because either its part of Eurozone or part of NATO. NATO is the most powerful bloc on earth. The only bloc that could challenge it was Warsaw-Pact nations which no longer exists. We must understand the reality. A tiger can not be equated with a jackal or goat. If the world body does not recognize it, very soon it will crumble.

In my opinion, the UNSC must have members who are top economic and military powers. If there has to be 10 permanent UNSC members then the permanency should be based on their economic and military weightages. If a nation declines in her powers then she is replaced. If such system is not evolved, no one will care for the UN. Narendra Modi had said in his UN speech that the world must realize why there are so many Gs - G7, G15, G22 etc etc. Somewhere the world body is unable to acknowledge the ground realities.

I would also like to mention that your write up clearly takes anti India position in the sense it opposes India's candidature for permanent membership to UNSC and unnecessarily gives UN a role in kashmir which both India and Pakistan have agreed to resolve bilaterally.

 

[jamahir]

Back your claims of Security council being equivalent to a terrorist council.

A state which involves in State sponsored terrorism to intentionally murder hundreds of innocent people.

right... usa government and its allies then.

Well its clear that the UN and especially the security council as it stands is not in touch with today's geopolitical realities. France and Britain will for example on any serious issue vote what the US tells them to vote. As such their vote is already represented by the US and their presence is not needed in the security council.

agreed... in the list of new self-proposed/proposed members ( Reform of the United Nations Security Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia only brazil is the generally independent one... the others are clearly in the western bloc... duplication of usa veto, as you said.

They should be replaced by one member from Africa (South Africa/Nigera) and one from a Muslim country (Turkey/Pakistan/Indonesia). A further seat should be added for South America possibly Argentina or Brazil. This makeup although not perfect is far more representative of todays world order than the current security council make up whose members were chosen to reflect the post WW II order of the world.

you are generally correct but your solution will only duplicate what uno general assembly already is... best is terminate the uno-sc.

 

[ganesh177]

Well its clear that the UN and especially the security council as it stands is not in touch with today's geopolitical realities. France and Britain will for example on any serious issue vote what the US tells them to vote. As such their vote is already represented by the US and their presence is not needed in the security council. They should be replaced by one member from Africa (South Africa/Nigera) and one from a Muslim country (Turkey/Pakistan/Indonesia). A further seat should be added for South America possibly Argentina or Brazil. This makeup although not perfect is far more representative of todays world order than the current security council make up whose members were chosen to reflect the post WW II order of the world.

If there ever has to be muslim representation, it wud be turkey/saudi.
Besides india have very huge muslim population, so india will represent them as well.

 

[blood]

Well its clear that the UN and especially the security council as it stands is not in touch with today's geopolitical realities. France and Britain will for example on any serious issue vote what the US tells them to vote. As such their vote is already represented by the US and their presence is not needed in the security council. They should be replaced by one member from Africa (South Africa/Nigera) and one from a Muslim country (Turkey/Pakistan/Indonesia). A further seat should be added for South America possibly Argentina or Brazil. This makeup although not perfect is far more representative of todays world order than the current security council make up whose members were chosen to reflect the post WW II order of the world.

lol so now we will have members based on religion

even that won't help your case