I definitely agree that the UN is a wretched hive of scum and villainy badly in need of reform or more. An initial reaction I have is that your proposed 'World Forum' sounds a bit like the League of Nations - which has been widely denounced as utterly ineffectual. I'd say that's probably because we (the US) weren't involved in it right at the moment that it was becoming abundantly clear we were one of the top powers in the world. I'm not extremely informed in this field (basically just someone who actually paid attention in AP history and government classes) so please do let me know if I'm mistaken.
Also, I agree that the UN should not be a coercive force, especially as it stands today - where opponents of governmental action (such as the war in Iraq) cite it as a legitimate body that disagrees with us, when really it is full of corruption and is pretty darn close to morally bankrupt. That being said, I think for a more positive model to emerge, there needs to be some *incentive* for it. Why go there to handle your problems instead of state to state diplomacy? Why donate your troops to peacekeeping or your money to disaster relief? THe obvious answers are humanitarian reasons, and I certainly think they should be met, but I think it would work out a lot like the UN currently stands - the US foots the bill and provides the soldiers for a large majority of what happens, but with none of the credit. In the model you suggest, I could easily see a case where our nation thinks itself better off showing the world taht we'll do disaster relief and peacekeeping where invited and that it's us doing it and not some other body. I could be wrong, though, as I'm probably underplaying the significance and value of international opinion. I'd love to hear what you think, though, especially if I'm full of crap, as I might be.
I have often heard that American, Russian, and German non-participation in the League caused it to fail, however I believe this is only partially correct, as I belive part of the reason is this:
"I see the League as a testament to failure in trusting the League of Nations to achieve anything. "
(From this post: http://www.jokerstotheright.com/...-boogaloo.html)
I think the same problem is inherit in the UN model as well. In a world body, I feel the best way to increase the effectiveness on the issues that it actually should deal with would be to streamline and reduce its power.
Right now, US forces do not do peacekeeping, and disaster relief is only partially coordinated by the UN (to my knowledge) and each country pledges what they will give.
I don't see the UN or the World Forum as a place for countries to use their power necessarily, but a place where they can come together to foster agreements not made as resolutions by the body itself, but as nations, which I think would be the best scenario in giving them more substance.
The US already circumvents the UN when we deem it in our interest, and that will continue under any system where the US is a hegemon.
Thanks for the input and the questions!
Lack of enforcement power was a key issue for the League, as it is for the United Nations. I think this is similar to what was already said, but I'm kind of wording it differently. At any rate, if you look at what happened in Iraq, for instance, there were many resolutions denouncing Saddam and calling for open inspections, etc. Though it seemed as though the last inspection regime may have actually been working when we invaded, this still was due to the credible threat provided by the United States alone and not because there was a UN resolution. Its just like the League of Nations when they failed to stop Italy's aggression in North Africa or Hitler's in Czechoslovakia. Credibility matters a whole lot, and without the UN becoming more of a world government, that might be difficult to achieve.
In other news, I've got the College Dems blog going again and will try to do better at posting on a regular basis. Don't forget about us! http://www.smartbluehens.blogspot.com
Commenting by HaloScan
