Some good ideas Shean, but reckon you have not got much hope against a unipolar America which does not believe in pure democracy anyhow.

Ever since globalisation and get big or get out came in, we people of the land know that the big league does not really like democracy because it could make everyone so happy they would be contented with what they woke up every morning with.

Trouble is what arch capitalists feed on, as could be proven in Iraq, that capitalists could make more out of Iraq by building it up again, similar to if Iran was detroyed enough to have its people only wishing for peace and quiet and the chance to be put together again.

Hence then along come the New World capitalist racketeers, nothing really new, but simply with that sweet-looking understanding face.

Capitalistic champions of the Big Con'.

Finally, Shean, please take note of the secret satisfied smile always on the face of Cheney, along with Rove the real master manipulators of all our futures.

You argue, discuss and inform us well Sean. It is so complex. It seems to me governance is the problem everywhere. The human problem. If only we could overcome the "gate-keeper" mentalities. Share the responsiblities.

As for networking as/with NGOs, I agree, the argument continues, but thank god we have them. It is helping to break-through some barriers.

If only we could all be more accountable... (there's that word again!). At least we inspire, help and bother to argue... which is a huge start given the stalemate of all other high levels - in governance, most everywhere.

Citizens in developed nations need to become more involved.

Unfortunately, there is so much apathy among us, in Australia.

I think networking with NGO's is the only way to raise awareness, to the need for pro-action.

A UN networking at ground levels means it is can be located closer to the communities ..... and that "think-tank" can provide the United Nations with a model of “governance” that is both legitimate and workable'.... in the long-term.

This kind of engagement works for governance everywhere if the aim is to empower others to take ownership through taking responsiblity.

The goal must be to self-govern and participate in all civic affairs, cooperatively.

As an ideal, it sounds as if it is all we have when it comes to finding a process that seeks something wholesome and broader.

I hope to hear more from you Sean. Thank You for this information.

.

The Author said:

"As much as we may have faith in the institution, in the charters, in the norms and ideas that we believe reflect what is best about humanity, we cannot deny the reality that the structure is a compromise to power."

1/ I have no faith in the organization !

It is a lapdog to those who have veto power ! (Security Council)

2/ Its "charters" are milestones on the road to social hell as far as I'm concerened.

Unadulterated SPIN. It's charters destroy social cohesian and policy independance of countries like Australia. The idea that a country cannot or should not DISCRIMINATE in its own social,economic,cultural and political interests, is plain ludicrous not to mention insulting.

3/ Norms and ideas...best about humanity ?

oh puh-lease. WHO'S ideas ? The Gay lobby ? The Bestiality Lobby ? The Child bride Lobby ?( such as Bilal Phillips who is to speak at the Islamic Conference in Melbourne over easter ?)http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,21399450-2862,00.html
or the Polyamorous lobby ? (a number of men women in one 'marriage'?)

One thing is sure, without a moral anchor and foundation, it will be driven by 'Research' and that new faithful "Make_it_Up_as_u_Go" (hereinafter known as MIUAUG)

While I won't suggest the 'Christian/Bible Bashing' Lobby should drive the agenda of a body like the U.N. I SURE AS HECK don't want THEM telling us in Australia that "Parents who impart faith to their chidren are guilty of child abuse"

DEMOCRACY ? again..give me a break. Has no one noticed how mindless whacko ideas like 'Free David Hicks' and "Let all the 'poor refugees' out of detention centres" are politicized and how fringe political groups simply use these issues to raise their own political profile ?

So.. any call for 'democracy' at the UN is simply code for "Hmm how can we advance our post modern/relativistic amoral leftist agenda this week"
We also don't need the 'Right' to be using it for their greedy purposes. But are 'Right' and 'Left' likely to change ? Sure they are, like a leapord changes its spots.

The U.N. only appeals to those with nothing to lose and everything to gain, at least in the short term (until it comes back to bite them) as well as the incredibly idealistic.

Also, for it to ultimately have any power, it must be(come) a higher level of government than the nation state. People have enough trouble agreeing in societies that are largely homogenous, but to suggest that people will ultimately give up their identities to a U.N. is absurd. Even that great bastion of "progressive" politics, Europe, can't get over this idea and agree on a Constitution.

It's a nice idea that one day, everyone will skip along hand in hand, but people are tribalistic. It's all about power and who wants it and who has it.

Do you honestly believe that the U.S., China, Russia or even the "progressives" of Britain and France would give up enough power to be on a level footing with New Zealand or Malta, let alone anywhere in the Third World? Or, that they would be foolish enough to let other up and coming powers such as India or Brazil to get even more power?

Any solution which does not support or strengthen the incumbent powers (as described in the quote below) will never happen, due to those same powers' influence and self-protection. The UN enforces rules on the small, naughty countries, but can't touch the incumbent powers and their friends. Therefore the UN is a tool to whack the smaller member and rogue states with, no more or less. It seems to be a sort of kleptocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy)

"Structurally, the United Nations favours the status quo and incumbent power. As supporters of a strong and capable United Nations, this reality leads to an uncomfortable but nonetheless central truth about the institution: the organisational structure, centred on the Secretariat, the Security Council, and the General Assembly does not reflect our democratic and humanitarian sensibilities."

Radical is close to conservatism(s).

The above comments reflect how misunderstood the NGO and or civic call is. This needs attention at all levels of representation and governance... be it inside this country or through Australia's role in the UN, from inside the UN itself.

The misunderstandings are understandable and quite real.

For the record, the grassroots NGO call, is a call from the ground level.

The call is about community and is concerned with a BOTTOM-Up rather than a TOP-Down approach.

Government communication, (no matter from which level) ought to be a two-way process.

Unless we get that right, we will always to be victim to high-headed-officials doing high-headed-things with no regulation.

We need to problem solve!

.

ABOUT TIME, TOO!

“The United Nations is our last, best hope for a peaceful and prosperous planet.”
If so, then all hope is lost. As long as dictators like Mugabe and the junta in Myanmar have the same voice in the General Assembly as the ambassadors of democratically elected governments, we are wasting our time even caring about the UN.

“... the organisational structure ... does not reflect our democratic and humanitarian sensibilities.”
Of course it doesn’t. How could it? The UN is a club, not of nations, but of governments, most of which don’t see any reason why they should represent the people they govern. Societies like ours, which have these western “sensibilities” and the liberty to practice them, are a minority in the world.

“I understand this is a radical idea that at first blush may sound faintly ridiculous.”
Don’t kid yourself, Sean: there’s nothing faint about it. If your reform is going to be democratic, then it would have to be based on votes of equal value, would it not? Or are you saying that a billion or so votes in India should have the same value as a few thousand in Tuvalu? And who is going to supervise elections for UN “senators” in countries that don’t even have domestic elections?

The worst problem with the United Nations is that it perpetuates the silly idea that there is such a thing as an “international community”. A community can only plausibly exist on the basis of some kind of shared values, and it should be perfectly obvious that no such set of shared values exists in our world. It would be lovely if our “democratic and humanitarian sensibilities” represented the desires of all the peoples of the world, but it is hopelessly utopian to pretend that they do.

An interesting approach Sean.

You might be interested in a different Baha'i approach on the UN. If so go to <http://bahai-library.com/file.php5?file=uhj_turning_point_nations&
Regards
GR

Ian,

Thanks for response.

Regarding Mugabe and the various juntas, at present there is no objective test in the United Nations that clearly separates these despicable regimes from the rest. One aim of my reform is provide such an objective test: If you elect your representative then ok, you are invited to the Senate. If you do not and until you do, access is denied and you have no say. Harsh (on the people of these states) but fair.

I understand your issue with regard to the huge differences is sizes between states. That is why I suggest at the end of my paper the possibility of weighted voting so that the representative of India would have a greater say. In fact, it may even be possible for some states to have more than one representative reflecting different understandings of the "national interest". This is in constrast to now as it makes no sense to have more than one ambassador.

I believe there is an international community. It is simply a community of nations, rather than one of individuals. I argue we do have shared values such as state sovereignty, national self-determination, non-interference. In the same way that individuals in Australia with different interests, priorities, hopes dreams, elect their representative to national parliaments, I argue nations that also have dissimilar interests should elect their representatives to the United Nations.

Who might oversee such elections? There are many groups interested in overseeing free and fair elections and have had great success particularly in Eastern Europe ensuring they are not fixed. Any suggestion an election to the UN Senate was fixed would be grounds for immediate rejection.

For shorbe, I am not interested in people everywhere holding hands: In offering this reform I only care about the peaceful resolution of competing national claims based on democratic principles.

G R thanks for the link. Very interesting :)

It is not UN structure being outdated - a very context of the UN is.

Probably, "UN Millennium Development Goals: Planetary Price" is a good clarification of a conclusion provided above:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/03/356004.shtml