“1/ What are it's values?”
Might is right.

“2/ Who determines them?”
The strongest military power.

“3/ What language does it speak?”
US$ and the petro-dollar.

“4/ When conflict between various members of the UN occur (on a cultural or religious level) or.. are simply in conflict by their essential nature, who and/or what is the arbiter or decider of which of the contending sides is supported and which one is supressed?”

The UN is a paper tiger that has no authority without the backing of its major contributors; USA, China, Russia, et al.

The UN is a joke, in as much as the UN Security Council only has 5 permanent members, and those members are the 5 largest arms manufacturers and dealers on the planet. That’s putting the vampires in charge of the blood bank! But strangely, no-one considers it a conflict of interests….well, no-one with enough arms to assert that position, anyway.

“I believe these are important questions, and without a bit of clear thinking on them, we are more likely than not to end up like philosophical browns cows heading off in all directions.”
We actually need to create a TRUE UN, rather than the façade of one that we currently have. No chance of that happening in the foreseeable future, but rather, the status quo will be maintained.

“Who is to say they are wrong..and on what basis?”
Refer back to “might is right”.

This is all human nature…taking advantage of advantages, whether that be technology, economics, military might, resources, political alliances, etc. There is no altruism in any form of government, only altruistic rhetoric. Individuals may be altruistic, but governments are there to make laws FOR business, and to rule the mob, regardless of political system. Ruling is about wealth and power, not altruism. Altruism is for philosophers and individuals, not government.

TBC

“What happens if a non UN member declares "I don't agree with those values, I have my/our own and they are just as valid"?”

That already exists under the current format of the UN.

I would suggest that the Global Village is a technological reality for the average person and a business reality for the multi-nationals, but not at the moment a workable New World Order type concept of a single language/currency/government.

In saying that, I believe that if such a thing occurs, it will be the result of the strongest global political influence of the time….if that was today, we might say US dominant, but in 10 years, we might say Chinese dominant. And even then, I don’t believe that most powerful nations consider it to be in their best interests for this concept to occur. Why? Because they understand conflict and conflict drives arms, technology and the ability to control resources. And with resources becoming more scarce, and therefore more primary in agenda, I see a picture more like A Brave New World scenario of the world being divided into three major sectors, which basically it is now. It is not in the interests of the First World for the Third World to join us. And thriving economies must be thwarted for the larger established ones to survive and thrive. That’s how it works already.

The other important aspect is this…the multi-nationals that know no boundaries. They are more a global government, than any national or group of governments is, or can be. National power in the way we have come to understand it is fast becoming a thing of the past, with conglomerates controlling more wealth than most nations, and being multi-national, loyal to no nation, but only to its own existence and growth. These are the New World Empires, and it is these that nations and a concept of a United Nations must come to terms with.

The United Nations I see in the future will be the Global Chambers of Commerce. Which again, is basically what it is already, but not openly recognized as such.

Dear Mindless cruelty,
The 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that the higher law has precedence over the lower law and as you can't prove what happens after the spirit leaves the body I guess it boils down to whose word you are going to believe. How can you believe a word that you have never heard.

What would have been an interesting discussion but never really got off the ground because of the usual conspiracy-theory hysteria that would embarrass even David Icke and Bill o Reilly:

So instead I'll just give a definition and step back:

"Global Citizen": either
1- person who percieves themselves as a citizen and participant in international policy, lobbying, activism, aid, assistance, etc. what we have now.
2- hypothetical citizen of a hypothetical all-world government. All semantics and politics behind it simply depend on who formed the government and for what purpose.

For the record, I think a world government is a stupid idea.

hi Hazza.. don't worry about the colorful input here :) you have a very good point.

You illustrate the problem. 'Who' does determine the values?

It seems if you believe our 'internationalists' that the UN decides what is good and right and proper.. such as though it's conventions.

If I had a dollar for each time Bob Brown has berated and reminded Australians that we have 'international obligations' I'd retire rich.

But when Bob Brown get's all fired up about something..the red flags go sproinggggggg.. and wave high up in the air. If Brown likes something..it's like us swimming outside the flags at Bondi..there is an unseen RIP waiting to drag us out to sea or moral degradation.

In spite of Pericles protestations and froth, the idea of 'Global citizen' is high in many peoples minds, and Brown would be one of the foremost perveyors of the idea.

It seems Rawmustard is on the money too.. while he uses 'raw' language.. the truth is present in his point. BIG gun=much power.
small gun... little power. The security council is the club of winners of the last war.. we all know that.

Nairbe amplifies Mustards point, and Col gives us the more philosophical approach.. also right in my view.

But poor old struggling Pericles.. sheesh..

"And the United Nations has no interest whatsoever in producing, creating, validating, endorsing or underwriting "Global Citizenship"

If you want to joke with us, we can open a special thread for that.

I'm reminded of the "Ground Zero Mosque" defenders there.
-Named 'Cordoba' (in memory of Muslim invasion,Imperialism and dominance of Spain)
-Supposed to open on 9/11 for 'a peace intiative'
-Japan is also opening a shrine to "Japanese Pilots" Bravery at Pearl harbour.. how dare any confused person suggest this might not be appropriate. Of course the signage will say "In memory of those brave pilots who fought American Imperialism and strove for global peace.

Well Pericles is absolutely correct- the concept "Global Citizen" as an actual literal thing is really nothing more than a concept people occasionally throw around in discussions. For any real sense there really is no such thing.

All international agreements are made, and ignored on a national level at the discretion of the governments who sincerely want to take part or not.
I don't believe many of the charters and declarations we (implicitly) signed were good ideas, but I wouldn't make a big fuss of it because when it comes to the crunch, we are free to ignore them and nobody outside can do anything about them. We would also be at liberty to unsign if we really felt like it.
To fret about any accountability beyond our shores is rather pointless, which was what his point was.

And to please your curiosity, any earnest attempt to merge the world into a single political body would only face opposition from:
-The dictatorial countries losing control
-The first-world democratic countries losing security
-The Islamic countries not wanting infidels interference.
-Basic logic dispelling any arguments for.
(basically everyone)
It simply has no chance of happening. Even the EU is greatly limited in its ability to call the shots- and has stopped expanding due to citizens having no interest in their next neighbouring countries.