Replacing the UN with a new sans-China organization

[Novus America]

But then why is the PRC justified in treating it the way it does?

Who ever said they were?

My point is simply the PRC’s claim it unified and ended internal conflicts in China is completely undermined by its irredentism.

[Lord Dominator]

Also, what did South Africa ever do to deserve being kicked out?

During the period of SA history I'm thinking of, Apartheid.

Takeout the DPRK and only recognize South Korea and Taiwan as the only and valid China and Korea. I'd suggest also kicking out Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, and Mexico. I'm sick and tired of these shithole nations and dictatorships plaguing the world.

You seem to have a weird mixing of actual dictatorships (or de-facto ones) and poorly run countries here, aside from appearing to be claiming that removing countries from the UN apparently makes the issues associated with them dissappear.

[Thermodolia]

I don't recall the Chinese government being represented in the UN at all.

Just some Maoist insurgents that people treat like legitimate world leaders for some reason.

Wtf makes some Kuomintang rebels more legitimate than CCP rebels?

Ya! Let’s bring back the Qing dynasty!

[Novus America]

Also, what did South Africa ever do to deserve being kicked out?

During the period of SA history I'm thinking of, Apartheid.

Takeout the DPRK and only recognize South Korea and Taiwan as the only and valid China and Korea. I'd suggest also kicking out Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, and Mexico. I'm sick and tired of these shithole nations and dictatorships plaguing the world.

You seem to have a weird mixing of actual dictatorships (or de-facto ones) and poorly run countries here, aside from appearing to be claiming that removing countries from the UN apparently makes the issues associated with them dissappear.

Yeah Mexico and Pakistan are not dictatorships (although Pakistan often has one it does not at the moment) so I do not see how any clearly defined criteria would come up with that.
Mexico is does not have a particularly oppressive government. Sure it is a borderline (or actual) failed state I large swaths of the country but that is a very different issue then with the PRC and DPRK.

[Thermodolia]

The original idea was that there wasn’t going to be a UN. Just those four nations ruling over their respective regions. Also those and only those nations would be allowed to possess anything greater than a rifle

I fail to see why that would negate the necessity of a counter-veto mechanism.

Because there wouldn’t have been a veto in the first place.

[North German Realm]

I fail to see why that would negate the necessity of a counter-veto mechanism.

Because there wouldn’t have been a veto in the first place.

Clearly, when the UN was developed and the SC designed, there was a veto -they put the mechanism in after all. That "the veto" or "the UN" or whatever were designed influenced by some vague, deranged idea of "let's divide the world into three Suprpowers, their vassals and China" doesn't negate the fact that the UN came to exist, and that the veto was put in the laws that the UN functions with, which is why I am astounded by the fact the designers apparently decided that they were going to be of the same mind on every issue forever and ever so didn't put a mechanism in to counter the veto.

[Thermodolia]

Because there wouldn’t have been a veto in the first place.

Clearly, when the UN was developed and the SC designed, there was a veto -they put the mechanism in after all. That "the veto" or "the UN" or whatever were designed influenced by some vague, deranged idea of "let's divide the world into three Suprpowers, their vassals and China" doesn't negate the fact that the UN came to exist, and that the veto was put in the laws that the UN functions with, which is why I am astounded by the fact the designers apparently decided that they were going to be of the same mind on every issue forever and ever so didn't put a mechanism in to counter the veto.

No im saying that the original plan wasn’t to even have a UN but four superpowers running the world.

Basically it would have been 1984 plus one more

[Valrifell]

How could you have a meaningful UN without one of the worlds leading powers and without a large chunk of the human population? Sure their influence on the ortqnization is fairly negative, but if you kick them out all they'd do is more openly try to undermine it.

[Thermodolia]

How could you have a meaningful UN without one of the worlds leading powers and without a large chunk of the human population? Sure their influence on the ortqnization is fairly negative, but if you kick them out all they'd do is more openly try to undermine it.

The UN as it stands is hardly meaningful

[Valrifell]

How could you have a meaningful UN without one of the worlds leading powers and without a large chunk of the human population? Sure their influence on the ortqnization is fairly negative, but if you kick them out all they'd do is more openly try to undermine it.

The UN as it stands is hardly meaningful

It helps a lot with border arbitration for nations folks generally don't care about, and those party to the arbitration tend to stick to it.

We'd have more border conflicts if the UN lost any more legitimacy.

[Novus America]

The UN as it stands is hardly meaningful

It helps a lot with border arbitration for nations folks generally don't care about, and those party to the arbitration tend to stick to it.

We'd have more border conflicts if the UN lost any more legitimacy.

The UN has notably failed to resolve numerous border conflicts. Also the Permanent Court of Arbitration is not part of the UN.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration is useful IF both parties agree to be part of its ruling but it is independent of the UN. And would exist without.
And the PRC ignores its rulings and refuses to let it arbitrate its irredentist claims anyways. Probably because the are total BS and the PRC knows it would lose hard in any legitimate arbitration.

[North German Realm]

Clearly, when the UN was developed and the SC designed, there was a veto -they put the mechanism in after all. That "the veto" or "the UN" or whatever were designed influenced by some vague, deranged idea of "let's divide the world into three Suprpowers, their vassals and China" doesn't negate the fact that the UN came to exist, and that the veto was put in the laws that the UN functions with, which is why I am astounded by the fact the designers apparently decided that they were going to be of the same mind on every issue forever and ever so didn't put a mechanism in to counter the veto.

No im saying that the original plan wasn’t to even have a UN but four superpowers running the world.

Basically it would have been 1984 plus one more

The "original plan" had been scrapped by the time the UN was created so that doesn't change my question.

[Bear Stearns]

Thanks for coming around to the viewpoint that our "free trade" agreements with the EU and China haven't really ever been "free". They've been ripping us off for years.

Rip you off once, shame on them.
Rip you off over and over again for years ... shame on you.

And what are you going to do about it now? Tariffs? Subsidies? An embargo?
My guess is you're going to do diddly squat. What the corporations want the corporations will get from you.

Well Trump did tariff them, so that's a start.

And...

>bragging that we should do nothing while the country is being ripped off

That's called a principled stance everyone

[New Bremerton]

Umm... I guess you are ignoring the PRC’s territorial claims against its neighbors, such as India or in the South China Sea which were found to have to have no basis in international law?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China
Simple respect for neighbors’ sovereignty hmm?

The South China Sea is Chinese, its a disgrace what the US Navy is doing over there.

The North Malaysian Sea is Malaysian, and I, for one, welcome U.S. forces in my regional backyard to stick it to the Chicoms. China can fuck right out of the North Malaysian Sea.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Because there wouldn’t have been a veto in the first place.

Clearly, when the UN was developed and the SC designed, there was a veto -they put the mechanism in after all. That "the veto" or "the UN" or whatever were designed influenced by some vague, deranged idea of "let's divide the world into three Suprpowers, their vassals and China" doesn't negate the fact that the UN came to exist, and that the veto was put in the laws that the UN functions with, which is why I am astounded by the fact the designers apparently decided that they were going to be of the same mind on every issue forever and ever so didn't put a mechanism in to counter the veto.

It's no surprise,Although the United Nations claims to be for peace, in practice it cannot be equated with justice.It exists to avoid the Third World War, so the focus of the rules is to make the five world powers satisfied with their benefits.If the United Nations has any mechanism that can limit the veto, then its own existence will be threatened.Historically, if two great powers wanted to carve up a small country, the small country was not even qualified for the negotiation table.So is the veto,to ensure that every decision of the United Nations will not damage the interests of the five powers and thus avoid aggravating conflicts.If it doesn't, the United Nations, like the League of nations, will not be able to organize war

[Shanghai industrial complex]

The South China Sea is Chinese, its a disgrace what the US Navy is doing over there.

The North Malaysian Sea is Malaysian, and I, for one, welcome U.S. forces in my regional backyard to stick it to the Chicoms. China can fuck right out of the North Malaysian Sea.

Why do Americans defend your Malaysian territorial waters?

[Novus America]

The North Malaysian Sea is Malaysian, and I, for one, welcome U.S. forces in my regional backyard to stick it to the Chicoms. China can fuck right out of the North Malaysian Sea.

Why do Americans defend your Malaysian territorial waters?

“While Malaysia's security are secured by the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) with Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and the United Kingdom, the US also has military alliance with both Australia and New Zealand under the Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS) and has established direct military and political co-operation with Singapore and Malaysia, whose armed forces were growing increasingly dependent on American arms shipments,[46] with the M4 carbine and M16 rifle became the major assault rifles for both armed forces.[47][48] Several US high-technology weapons systems also been purchased by Malaysia, notably the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18D fighter aircraft,[45] and McDonnell Douglas MD 530G attack helicopter.[49]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia–United_States_relations

And smaller countries by necessity have to rely on alliances with large powers.
Malaysia cannot do anything much about the PRC on its own, but with allies it can.

[Cambrian Albany]

Just not have a bloody UN. It's pretty useless anyway -particularly for developed countries with large enough militaries to defend themselves.

[-Astoria-]

Just not have a bloody UN. It's pretty useless anyway -particularly for developed countries with large enough militaries to defend themselves.

There's such thing as NATO, you know...

[Cambrian Albany]

Just not have a bloody UN. It's pretty useless anyway -particularly for developed countries with large enough militaries to defend themselves.

There's such thing as NATO, you know...

Yes.. and?

[Shanghai industrial complex]

The UN as it stands is hardly meaningful

It helps a lot with border arbitration for nations folks generally don't care about, and those party to the arbitration tend to stick to it.

We'd have more border conflicts if the UN lost any more legitimacy.

Usually UN resolutions are not mandatory.As the name indicates, arbitration means that there are no mandatory additional measures in the opinion of the United Nations.And the enforcement measures of the United Nations are usually implemented by one or more of the five powers.The United Nations is like a forum host. Hosting this forum does not mean that he really has the right

[Grahnol]

I looked at this thread and it's a pretty stupid and asinine idea. Then I see the discussion and go 'The actual fuck are you all on? '

We can't just dismantle the UN, all the Great Powers will protest against that because it maintains their place in international politics and we can't just remove China because it's literally impossible to remove a potential superpower from an organisation especially one that is actively domineering. Honestly, the best we could do is make a collective agreement in the UN, not necessarily a General Assembly resolution (and definitely not a Security Council resolution since it would just get vetoed), a collective agreement amongst multiple different UN members to form a bloc against China and start actively hurting China economically, politically, etc. Bomb them occasionally if they get pissy.

If they don't stop their abhorrent human rights violations and blatant internal meddling and domineering of influential non-government entities such as corporations, I would honestly all be in favour of a complete war against China and maybe put China in some kind of international occupation zone although such occupation would be expensive as fuck. Liberate the Uyghurs, Tibetans, maybe the Manchus and reverse all the abhorrent shit Communist China has committed and fuck the CCP pest over and then rebuilt China to actually be sane and serve the Chinese people properly with what they want and deserve.

I'm not saying we should absolutely do something like this, but I think it's one of the better things we could do if China starts getting a massive amount of control in the world to their own selfish interests and we can't convince China to stop puppeting everything its plushy Pooh bear claws could get their hands-on. Honestly, all of this might not even be necessary because I honestly believe and guarantee you that shortly after becoming a superpower, China would crumble under its own inefficient bureaucratic weight and fall into civil unrest, in which case it should be our job to mediate it. Of course, one might argue it's better to take preventative measures than wait for the inevitable.

The role of the United Nations is to prevent wars among the world's great powers.On major issues, small countries do not actually have much say

Do you suggest another Korean war or a nuclear war?

Keep in mind, this is pretty much a last resort solution if China keeps placing itself as a threat to the international community. We might not even need a war if China keeps digging itself into a hole like I believe is pretty much inevitable at this point. If all our choices are narrowed down to just war I would definitely prefer a Korean War-type situation but there is no telling if Communist China would turn this into a massive fistfight by throwing a nuke at all of the participants. I don't know if it is strategic to do so in a Korean War-type scenario, I'll make anyone in this thread the judge.

[Grahnol]

Just not have a bloody UN. It's pretty useless anyway -particularly for developed countries with large enough militaries to defend themselves.

The point of the UN isn't to defend countries in the face of a war though? I do agree that nowadays the UN is pretty damn useless sticking with its purpose of 'maintaining cooperation, dialogue and security amongst members'. I really wish the UN was much more cohesive and the countries who have great powers in the UN use the power of the UN much more though. Also can we have a better way of deciding who gets power in the UN? Especially in the Security Council jesus does that thing suck.

[Ankenland]

ANY time is a terrible time to be beholden to a government known for shooting their own citizens for protesting or getting citizens who didn't even protest killed through industrial recklessness.

This is a great idea! We should also get rid of Russia though, because of all those elections they hacked - this was pure evil.

What should we call this new organization?

How about, NATO?

[James_xenoland]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmsqeFAlSGA

So there's increasing reason to suspect that China's involvement in the W.H.O. played a key role in why they were praising China's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

ANY time is a terrible time to be beholden to a government known for shooting their own citizens for protesting or getting citizens who didn't even protest killed through industrial recklessness. But the world has paid for its complacency by the fact that now it's no longer just the Chinese under threat from their government, but all of us. Every one of us now has far more reason to stand up to the Chinese government; and less reason not to.

So why not abolish the UN; and in turn, its sub-branch of the W.H.O.; and replace them with a new organization beholden to everyone but the Chinese government, such that it could represent the world's interests more, and the Chinese government's interests less?

(Image)

The WHO wasn't just praising China's response, they were playing an active and key role in chinese/ccp propaganda and push to establish a certain narrative. (and I'd argue that interpretation is putting it extremely lightly, if not favorably for both) From the very start the WHO has been a literal mouthpiece for the ccp and running interference for them whenever they could. The WHO has yet to even really acknowledge or comment on the chinese government's disastrous failed attempt to cover the virus up at first. Which was the whole reason the outbreak started in the first places. They continually downplayed the severity and threat of the virus for months. They literally jumped through hoops, redefined terms and rules in their refusal to call it a pandemic or even officially a serious global threat. I mean anyone who was paying attention could never forget some of the eye rolling excuses used. From throwing around anal fineprint reasoning for not doing so, to then at one point claim that they technically "did away" with the procedures for officially declaring a pandemic. They even argued that they "feared" declaring one would somehow lead to countries not doing anything about it. As if the concept wasn't about raising an alert, but an admission of futility or something. The international organization responsible for sending out the global alert, claimed that it might be dangerous for global readiness if they actually officially raised a global alert! But in the end when they finally did, it was just in time to lag behind the spread and explosion of the virus worldwide,... and, surely coincidental, just as the virus slowed down "officially" in china. (established narrative) So luckily for the image obsessed ccp government, only once the virus was able to be portrayed as being of a more global nature. And OC, all thanks to those "inept" freedom loving economy protecting nations allowing it to spread around the world.. /s

Never forget that the WHO was also using every bit of its authority to basically yell at and threaten anyone who so much as thought about restricting air travel to anywhere in china. Even well after the a/pre-symptomatic infectious nature of the virus was clear. That the 'keep everything open and just take temperatures of everyone flying in' strategy, was only ever going to be useful for getting temperature takers infected! I mean they (much like china too) were condemning travel restrictions while the chinese themselves were welding people into their homes. Think about that for a minute!

The final ultimate straw for me was their long delayed 'china visit' and subsequent love letter/fluff piece. (aka china "report") You remember, the visit and report headed up by the shill who literally had not one negative word to say about or bit of data to dispute from china. The guy who went on to praise the chinese medical system (not joking here) as unmatched, if not unmatchable for the rest of the world. (he actually claimed at one point that if he had to get the virus, he'd want to be in a chinese hospital.... just.. wow) That's also the "report" they used as the basis for aggressively denying the concept of asymptomatic infections. Disputing scientific studies and reports showing contrary. Telling the world that there's no need to worry about people who don't become symptomatic. I think it's because the official chinese narrative at the time was "total containment" and "found all the cases". But either way, in so doing, they completely undermined the world's efforts to contain or slow the virus. And in a last (but likely not final) bit of irony.. The data that china was recently forced to admit to being incorrect and incomplete, after it got leaked.. Since, at the very least, they weren't counting CONFIRMED positive infections that remained asymptomatic.

The WHO needs to be wiped clean from top to bottom at the very least! A complete reset if not rethinking.