Dream on,

Unless any of the major countries are prepared to cede substatial authority to the UN, the security council will continue to be toothless.

Until then the structure is largely irrelevant.

i presume this article is designed to pump up the author's 'publication' stat. it has no other use that i can see.

y, the world is run by power. n, complaining about the un is not useful. why not try some analysis on the abuse of power close to home?

just a hint: why is australia not a democracy?

if you figure that one out, we'll talk about the un.

Shadow Minister, you are so right that the UN is pretty well useless.

As snyone interested in political philosophy should know, the present UN is supposed to represent the doctrine of Kantianism, which is based on the principle of a World Court backed by a democratic Federation of Nations, and in which not one person alone should ever be allowed to design or dictate policy.

It proves so much how Pax Americana has bastardised Enlightenment principles, and may prove how much more could have been gained by more US humility, part of it being an admittance from George W Bush, that he could have done a better job of global manager, if he had stuck to what is known as Kantian philosophy.

Regards, BB, WA.

bushbred,

I can only agree with you that the UN is pretty well useless, and that throughout its history the existence of the veto has meant that very few problems could be settled by the UN. Apart from Korea, where the UN was only able to act because Russia could not get its representatives back to New York fast enough to veto any action, the only single case that I can think of where they acted was in the First Gulf War, when all the permanent members were in agreement.

It is a sad comment on human nature that throughout the cold war the peace was preserved, not by the UN, by by the existence of a nuclear stalemate.

Anyone who thinks that a re-negotiation of the veto provisions is in any way possible should remember the 19th century ditty:

The case is clear, 'cos we have got
The Gatling Gun, and they have not.

Thanks, Plerdus, as one going on 88, I can only wonder whether it's been worth giving away golf and gaining Honours concerning the very problems we are now not only facing in the Middle East, but also the world.

Once again I wonder what you really do think about thinkers like Immanuel Kant , who different than Hegel his Germanic Christian associate, was against feudalistic reasoning like Hegel's which not only brought us Marxism, but also Nazism. and which I am afraid is close to the doctrine not only pushed by GW Bush, but also by the the angry followers of Islam.

Either side wants superiority without either side offering to share the blame, which Kantian philosophy reveals can only be realised not by an appointed leader having last say like our American President or a typical Islamic leader, but by a genuine plebiscite or the equivalent.

Cheers, BB. WA.

I find the 'toothless-tiger' type arguments too narrow-minded.

The reason that Russia, China, France, the US and the UK have a veto power is to stop the UN from becoming involved in conflicts that are the interference in the domestic politics of a sovereign state, ie Vietnam, Latin-America in the 1980s, the plans to invade Cuba in the 1960s etc. The veto provides a balance so that the UN will only become involved in conflicts when arguments for intervention convince both Western and non-Western nations.

Interestingly, when the UN talks about reforming the Security Council, all proposed models include some nations having a veto.

The UN was never intended to be the world's police force. Reading the UN Charter makes this abundantly clear.

If we are going to debate the UN and the Security Council, it is necessary to consider the Charter of the UN, which is the legal basis for the UN and the Security Council. Article 7 is most relevant to debates about the Security Council.

Plerdsus,

The peace between the major powers may have been kept by the nuclear stalemate, but could it also be the fact that the major powers gradually realised that security implies safeduarding the trading patterns,- which also implies the security of access to resources?
Could it also be that certain things just can not be decided by war? - For example, the control of epidemics, the freedom of all kinds of navigation, global telecommunication, and even the humble global postal network? All these, and more, need international law. (Treaties that are administered by an independent directorate.)

Usually, people or governments make decisions for very complex reasons,- although, a particular event may be "triggered" by a certain action.

Shadow Minister,

The UN at present is only useless as far as security issues are concerned. (Which is very important.) It is not in the interest of Russia or of China to help the West, - or vice versa. In spite of this, the major powers just cannot let the UN collapse. Why?

Humans have an innate tendency to seek patterns, and hence to be able to make predictions. In the field of science we have gone a long way along this path. In the field of economics and international relations we have to go back to the drawing board.

Economics and international relations are also complicated by our "reflexive" tendency. (The reflexive tendency is when our action justifies a perceived theory.)

Having a somewhat more realistic view of the true nature of things (such as economics and international relations)may take some time.

Governments realise that the alternative to any form of reference to international law is international anarchy. Acquiescing to anarchy is not human nature.

Nick-Syd,

Talk about reforming the Security Council always includes nations having the veto. Very true.

Reform largely depends on how long the rest of the world is going to be willing to be in hock to the major powers. Just to remind ourselves, democracies the world over far outnumber the major powers population-wise. They also have considerable exporting clout. Even the majority of the population within the major powers question the perceived wisdom of permanent confrontation.