Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozmonster
I think this requires legitimate discussion.
There are five permanent members of the UN security council:
US
UK
France
Russia
China
These countries all have differing political viewpoints, and one veto can kill a resolution. This is NOT democratic.
In order to further democracy of the world, wouldn't it be better if the UN adaopted a one member - one vote system. Countries can then decide what is in their own national interest and vote accordingly, with the democratically 'elected' resolution enforced. Every member must commit 10% of its armed forces to the UN mandate.
This way the UN would become a much more effective body.
Thoughts?
|
I think you're wrong about the more effective bit. If the UN tried to switch to "one member - one vote", I suspect that the five veto-wielding nations (and probably quite a few others from the first world) would immediately withdraw their membership and refuse to acknowledge the UN's authority over them. That would seriously hamper the effectiveness of the UN.
The nations who pulled out would, of course, be acting in the best interests of their own people; that's their job. If they didn't, the little nations could (and likely would) initiate a rapid wealth redistribution initiative; after all, that would be in the best interests of
their people.
Quite a few people have argued recently that Iraq is "not ready for democracy". They may be right, I'm not sure. But I'm absolutely CERTAIN that the world, as a whole, is not ready for democracy. Much of it isn't even democratic on the national level.