The UN was formed after many nations suffered citizen loss as well as property and gold.
To-day there is a swell of opinion such that once a nation starts taking casualties the moral imperative, real or connived, dissipates. Progress? A nation cannot tolerate suffering of its own, but happy in the destruction of others? Probably and any change to the UN may only be desired when many nations have spent their testosterone and holding power by the leaders needs some appeasement of suffering.
Even then the more forward thinking nations will design the sympathy process with the national end in view, as happened in 1944. Sure citizens and groups will offer sympathy and help in a more open way but for example; would lend lease have happened if it did not open markets for US enterprises?
International law, in part a consequence of the UN, is now challenged by a return to the law of the powerful, who want their chance at Empire on terms not dissimilar to the UK, Holland, France Spain and more including perhaps parts of Scandinavia, at present a thoughtful supporter of the UN, but others as well.
Those with the where withal to exert might will naturally have their fleas feasting on the detritus of power but also those without power who feeling downtrodden seek a measure power in ways disruptive to Peace.
If somehow the will of the world could be expressed by a return to law and prosecuting the offenders, thus indicating a declining double standard and acknowledging as the Charter does that people every where are worth something more than the play things of the uncaring. This if it happened would provide impetus for improvement of the UN.
I see your suggestions as of merit but unlikely of implementation in the absence of a world catastrophe. Our genes or our upbringing, schooling flags and drums and Hollywood type epics, a sycophantic press devoted more to profit than providing information?

The writer wants the wealthy industrialised countries to give more aid money to the UN. This will simply encourage a more widespread culture of dependency.
Take the example of Bob Geldof's "Live Aid" concert to alleviate a famine in Ethiopia in 1986, when its population was 35 million. In 2006 he was talking about a replay of the concert. Ethiopians, encouraged to be dependent on aid, by then had a population of 73 million. Aid is not the solution unless it is very specifically targetted and administered.

from Jack Sturgess

UN Reforms and how to be effective as world citizens? A thought provoking article Keith Suter. Yes, we need to openly discuss and learn more about the role and problems faced by the UN and make that more visible throughout society, everywhere.

a) I believe the United Nations 'could be a truly international civil service' and it is immensely sad the way this organisation is used in some ways merely 'as a dumping ground to reward retired politicians or relatives' by countries throughout the present world.

b) On budget issues, it is unfortunate how the Peace Keeping costs critically strain the actual balance of budget directives, at present. This is instead of the UN having more room for strategic allocations on education, health and crime prevention ... good governance and civil participation programes.

I feel nation states could do more to aid the UN in addressing these costs, if there was a greater will to act.

c) I feel the forum is loop-sided and the Charter (selection process) in this way, is out of date, as you said. I believe the role of 'Small Island States' is under-mined (for example) by this representatives system at this time, and reflects how the UN is caught inside the politics and pressure as we understand it.... between the EU, Africa and the United States particularly. This is especially transparent through the way Trade Barriers and poor Market Forces dominate and almost completely nullify the efforts to increase better understanding around a solution by Western representatives.

Thank You for this article Keith, it is good to revisit a basic article on how the UN operates.

http://www.miacat.com/

The main problem concerning the UN that has been ignored by all posters is the lack of popular consent to the basic structure of the UN. An organisation only has legitimacy when the people have delegated power to it, and that has never occurred. When the colonies decided to federate into the Commonwealth of Australia, the people of each colony validated the federation in a referendum. Similarly, when each of the european countries joined the EU, this act was approved by a referendum. (Except for one country, the UK, which goes a long way to explain the attitude to the EU that exists there).

The lack of legitimacy in much of what the UN does (remember that an organisation where India has the same representation as Nauru must be about as undemocratic as you can get), makes many people regard it as little more than a joke, and its determinations only observed when validated by national law.

If anyone were to suggest that the Australian people would delegate any powers over them to the UN in a referendum, you would have me rolling in the aisles with laughter.

Perhaps the present structure of the UN is the best that can be achieved, but it is looking more like the League of Nations every day. The only occasion that all the peoples of the earth will be united is when we are all fighting the Martians.

The United Nations was always doomed to failure and it will never work in the future. The sentiment behind it was good but nations involved in the United Nations will always support a horse called self interest of their own nation.

The Most powerful nations are always going to beyond the power of the united nations to control anyway if they really want to do something. For example, there is no way the American Military is going to hand George Bush over to face any World War crimes court.

The huge massacres had already happened in Rwanda and Serbia before
the united nations could act anyway and no-one including the United
Nations could ever stop the IRA

Oh bother , Another dreamer with a wish list for the central planning committee .

Let’s see what she wants ;
- more mums
- more money
- more freedom
- more autonomy
- more respect (compulsory)
- absolutely no dissent
- no accountability
- no questions
- tenure
- shock troops on demand at her pleasure(to enforce her will)

Sounds like a standard wish list from any public servant from any government dept . No?

If the committee (UN) received what the author suggests it would simply become exactly what it was originally intended to negate . Tyranny .

My opinion .

Okay folks.... here we go!

The UN is made up of nation states and is governed by these nation states.

Frankly this reflects each of US.

If our government is made up of many people "self-governing themselves" in a way that reflects their empowered vote, we become "self-governing" citizens, as a nation, and can influence the directives of the UN, through our national and collective process directly.

Collective Securities is about working together effectively for the common good.

I.e., I am here today after WW2, as a result of the 1947 Marshall Plan (The UN's European Recovery Act).

The United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, helped millions of war-torn families like mine.

Pushing this a wee bit further.... it could be said, the Marshall Plan actually benefited from a global collabration of economic policies (at that time) assisting European markets (crushed by this war) to rebuild and stabilise, hence regain their national autonomy, through socio-economic growth.

We need to problem solve.

We are not so much talking about the UN, and what we expect .... we are talking more about the expectation of ourselves and how we might influence.

The UN belongs to ALL of US.

Until we take part in the struggle of reform, many more will be left suffering, without better strategic assistance. WHY?

Because of the apathy, in modern populations.

Step One: I see our investment to be through knowledge building.

Step Two: With more of this knowledge shared jointly we are in a better position ourselves each, and as a community to influence our local, state and regional governments, if we each find the will.

So what if the UN needs structural changes.

We have changed the design of our cloths - our cars - the way we dress - eat and have fun. Why can't we change the UN just through learning and sharing and exchanging our knowledge more.

Self Government is about civic empowerment as much as how we influence ourselves and others in Community, as well as our Governments.

We can work with the UN in many ways... take a look!

.

Anyone with a knowledge of historical philosophy knows that it was the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant who first thought of the necessity for a global authority to preserve Perpetual Peace.

No doubt many of our Onliners would regard Kant's doctrine as quaintly naive, yet one thing that Kant did stress, was that the example of Napoleon declaring himself emperor after a pledge from him to honour the Enlightenment principle of Liberty - Equality - and Fraternity, Kant did exemplify that from then on, the citizenry should not only distrust rulership from one man alone, but even from one government alone, stressing the need for a multiple of strong nations.

Surely we must learn a lesson from the above, that trying to make Kant's original idea democratic by trying to run the alliance with a mixture of veto rights for the stronger nations, along with weaker authority from the smaller nations, a strong diplomatic figure like Kant would have regarded such an idea with scorn.

Better to have the weaker nations represented by regional means, the main authority expressd by what we now call multipolar in politics and multilateral in economics.

It is so interesting that Gorbachev former leader of Soviet Russia has spoken of global authorities like this, as also just recently Vladimer Putin has mentioned that the world could have been a safer place than it is now, under the rather tense bilateralism that existed between the US and the Soviets.

At least an agreement was worked out, even with the new Russia still holding the Soviet nuclear arsenal.

Finally, though Kant may not have envisaged our increasingly ever dangerous growing nuclear world, it is believed his preference of an elected group of strong nations to preserve perpetual peace, as far superior to the unipolar authority we have now, especially as there is much more than a smidgeon of the old colonial racketeer-style greed mixed up unfortunately, with just one unipolar top-dog sitting up above.

No names no pack-drill for the writer, we hope

I am instantly impressed with a degree of professionalism UN-related articles avoid dualism of this international organization.

This is a representative diplomatic forum a n d executing the resolutions adopted international bureaucratic entity with vast civic relief and development functions and even more vast ambitions fed up with upper Earth governmental delusion.

Can one imagine formally a MP sitting as a judge after parliament time?

Maybe, this is the most significant basic misprint of the UN we were grown up with.

Maybe I'm deeply biased, but the thought of no UN, even the poorly functioning one we have now is frightening to me. It would be wonderful if this planet's nation had the will to implement the reforms suggested by Keith Suter.

I am descendant of people who lost everything in WWII, lives, homes and mental peace. The notion that this could have been avoided if the previous League of Nations had the courage to act is deeply personal.

Often when we critize the UN we see this as an organisation that does not have relevance in our safe lives and can therefore be easily dismissed as a corrupt unwieldy elephant. We won't need the UN ourselves after all. We are friends with the USA.

Remember a large part of continental Europe was totally destroyed in WWII and WWI. The effects of which have only in the 1980's been eliminated.

Now Western nations are again being pressured by a number of displaced persons (refugees) of unimaginable proportions. There are many conflicts and more brewing. A UN is needed now more than 30 years ago.

"A UN is needed now more than 30 years ago" -definitely.

Plenty third world indigenous princelings kids having grown up as well as their peers from some Western countries having privileges inherited are ready for wages and perks the UN bestow them upon.