NationStates

Thermodolia wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Yes. Normally, membership of a new nation is granted by a nomination of the Security Council, voted on by the General Assembly. However, in the case of China, no new member was admitted. The People's Republic was chosen to be the new representative of the State of China. So, China remained a member, just represented by a different entity.

Now, it was supported because the majority of the General Assembly saw the logic behind recognising the PRC, it being a nuclear power in control of the Chinese mainland. However, the reverse would be inconceivable.

We should however admit Taiwan as Taiwan and not the ROC

Would they get a vote on the Security Council?

Get rid of the United Nations entirely. Regional trade and defence pacts should be the way forward. (No, NOT like the EU)

I knew this would be a LUNA thread when I saw it in the sidebar.

That's enough clue as to how sensible the idea within is.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote: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 big mistake from the beginning was making some nations more equal than others with veto over the whole, and administratively heavy, like some sort of massive but greatly oversimplified HRE royal court. In the name of "making the world safe for democracy" they made a huge oligarchical money hole that has to be monitored 24/7 so that abuse and fraud doesn't get too far out of hand, and the monies are utilized properly.

It could be more readily reformed on a republican model of deliberation, decentralization, and utility of necessity much like the Cantons of Switzerland historically, (sans the Napoleon fiasco), and some of best of what the US used to be when it was "these United States" instead of "this United States," and world Treat organizations like the British Commonwealth of Nations, and less on Oligarchy structures, unaccountable bureaucratic administrative statecraft, and faux-democracy.

Personally I would like to disband it, but since it is already a white elephant, strip it down to a clearing house for the free flow of information, ideas, and civil dispatch. I am an ornery cuss, so If I had the authority, I would put Hong Kong, ROC, and a free and independent Macau on the Security Council, and make PRC a provisional member at the pleasure of the other Chinas. But that is just me.

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:

Skeckoa wrote:No organization is a global organization if it doesn't include China. What you are proposing is NATO-style alliance in the Pacific Ocean B) USA, Vietnam, Thailand, India, Japan, Australia, maybe Rep. of Korea, too? We all know that the Phillippines is a lost cause of Chinese imperialism.

Are you serious?Is the Philippines not a former colony or a semi colony of the United States?

The Philippines is a former United States colony, but as of right now, the Philippines' president is beholden to China and China's interests.

Skeckoa wrote:

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:
Are you serious?Is the Philippines not a former colony or a semi colony of the United States?

The Philippines is a former United States colony, but as of right now, the Philippines' president is beholden to China and China's interests.

It doesn't matter. He can't take part in the next election. There will be a new president soon

Narland wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote: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 big mistake from the beginning was making some nations more equal than others with veto over the whole, and administratively heavy, like some sort of massive but greatly oversimplified HRE royal court. In the name of "making the world safe for democracy" they made a huge oligarchical money hole that has to be monitored 24/7 so that abuse and fraud doesn't get too far out of hand, and the monies are utilized properly.

It could be more readily reformed on a republican model of deliberation, decentralization, and utility of necessity much like the Cantons of Switzerland historically, (sans the Napoleon fiasco), and some of best of what the US used to be when it was "these United States" instead of "this United States," and world Treat organizations like the British Commonwealth of Nations, and less on Oligarchy structures, unaccountable bureaucratic administrative statecraft, and faux-democracy.

Personally I would like to disband it, but since it is already a white elephant, strip it down to a clearing house for the free flow of information, ideas, and civil dispatch. I am an ornery cuss, so If I had the authority, I would put Hong Kong, ROC, and a free and independent Macau on the Security Council, and make PRC a provisional member at the pleasure of the other Chinas. But that is just me.

From your criticisms it’s clear you don’t have an idea how the UN actually works.

Drongonia wrote:Get rid of the United Nations entirely. Regional trade and defence pacts should be the way forward. (No, NOT like the EU)

So, regional trade, but not like the EU?

Also, regional defence pacts are still allowed under the UN charter.

You can thank Nixon for this.

Can we just abolish the UN?

You're saying that as if the PRC is the only UN member state to have ever committed such atrocities, OP. Many others have, too, including the all-so-powerful US of A if you care to read some history. And we also have a reason to stand up to those countries, not just China. Antagonising them could lead to even more catastrophe, which exactly the opposite of what we need right now.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:such that it could represent the world's interests more

This is too utopic and realistically unachievable, in my opinion.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:So, regional trade, but not like the EU?

Literally yes. Why is it so hard for a group of countries to get together and say "we want to be allies" without burying all members in the alliance under a mountain of bureaucratic nonsense?

Drongonia wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:So, regional trade, but not like the EU?

Literally yes. Why is it so hard for a group of countries to get together and say "we want to be allies" without burying all members in the alliance under a mountain of bureaucratic nonsense?

Because any true free trade agreements requires a degree of unity in production requirements that can only be achieved through a level of bureaucracy. All EU bureaucracy is required for it to do its job.

Bear Stearns wrote:Can we just abolish the UN?

No

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Drongonia wrote:
Literally yes. Why is it so hard for a group of countries to get together and say "we want to be allies" without burying all members in the alliance under a mountain of bureaucratic nonsense?

Because any true free trade agreements requires a degree of unity in production requirements that can only be achieved through a level of bureaucracy. All EU bureaucracy is required for it to do its job.

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.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Because any true free trade agreements requires a degree of unity in production requirements that can only be achieved through a level of bureaucracy. All EU bureaucracy is required for it to do its job.

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.

I’m not coming around to anything. There is no free trade agreement between the EU and China, and no-one is claiming there is. Not even the EU commission is claiming there is: https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/count ... ies/china/

This has to be the lamest attempt at a gotcha that had ever been thrown in my direction.

Skeckoa wrote:No organization is a global organization if it doesn't include China. What you are proposing is NATO-style alliance in the Pacific Ocean B) USA, Vietnam, Thailand, India, Japan, Australia, maybe Rep. of Korea, too? We all know that the Phillippines is a lost cause of Chinese imperialism.

No. A good majority of us Filipinos are very anti-PRC. I am among them. In fact, one of Duterte's election points was to retake the South China Sea from the Chinese (which is obviously not happening now). That's an important factor of why he got elected. Grace Poe's stance on the situation was rather unclear to me other than the whole Hague situation.

We are most definitely not a lost cause.

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:

Skeckoa wrote: The Philippines is a former United States colony, but as of right now, the Philippines' president is beholden to China and China's interests.

It doesn't matter. He can't take part in the next election. There will be a new president soon

If by soon, you mean two years later, then yes. But I imagine Duterte would have had a big impact on China-Philippine relations by that time. It's best someone turn around his foreign policy ship, since at least some of the US cares about us, while China can easily manipulate us into being a pawn of theirs.

It doesn't matter. He can't take part in the next election. There will be a new president soon[/quote]

Bear Stearns wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Because any true free trade agreements requires a degree of unity in production requirements that can only be achieved through a level of bureaucracy. All EU bureaucracy is required for it to do its job.

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.

Pilipinas and Malaya wrote:

Skeckoa wrote:No organization is a global organization if it doesn't include China. What you are proposing is NATO-style alliance in the Pacific Ocean B) USA, Vietnam, Thailand, India, Japan, Australia, maybe Rep. of Korea, too? We all know that the Phillippines is a lost cause of Chinese imperialism.

No. A good majority of us Filipinos are very anti-PRC. I am among them. In fact, one of Duterte's election points was to retake the South China Sea from the Chinese (which is obviously not happening now). That's an important factor of why he got elected.

A promise he couldn't possibly keep, no surely not

Hypercapital wrote:Y'all are just a buncha Pro-Communist, Pro-CCP scumbags that hate Freedom.

Hold up there McCarthy, don't get too excited.

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

I don't know what you mean, SA is a full member of both the UN and WHO? Senator McCarthy is certainly going a bit bonkers in his old years.

Hypercapital wrote: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.

This statement is so stupidly broad and non-specific. The only thing plaguing the world right now is your complete lack of nuance. What does this it mean, man!?

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Drongonia wrote:
Literally yes. Why is it so hard for a group of countries to get together and say "we want to be allies" without burying all members in the alliance under a mountain of bureaucratic nonsense?

Because any true free trade agreements requires a degree of unity in production requirements that can only be achieved through a level of bureaucracy. All EU bureaucracy is required for it to do its job.

The EU is just a loose economic cooperation organization. It's not SPQR.The EU is as efficient as the UN.LOL

Even if China was somehow successfully expelled from the UN, it would just start its own global group with blackjack and hookers. And it has a few countries by the balls to where they would be coerced into joining while leaving the UN.

And what do you get from this?

If anything should be addressed in the UN, it is 1) the veto privileges of the USA, Russia, China, UK, France (furthermore an outdated list consisting of the WWII winners), and 2) its pathetic enforcement powers that allow most nations to simply disregard whatever the UN says.

Vivolkha wrote:And what do you get from this?

If anything should be addressed in the UN, it is 1) the veto privileges of the USA, Russia, China, UK, France (furthermore an outdated list consisting of the WWII winners), and 2) its pathetic enforcement powers that allow most nations to simply disregard whatever the UN says.

Funfact that no little amount of the UN member states have a rather poor human right records and a big one in all around douchebaggery.

The UN was once a nice and noble idea, but it has become extremly corrupted.

Vivolkha wrote:And what do you get from this?

If anything should be addressed in the UN, it is 1) the veto privileges of the USA, Russia, China, UK, France (furthermore an outdated list consisting of the WWII winners), and 2) its pathetic enforcement powers that allow most nations to simply disregard whatever the UN says.

You can blame it on the powerful nations not wanting to be bitten by a UN with teeth.

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Because any true free trade agreements requires a degree of unity in production requirements that can only be achieved through a level of bureaucracy. All EU bureaucracy is required for it to do its job.

The EU is just a loose economic cooperation organization. It's not SPQR.The EU is as efficient as the UN.LOL

The EU has literal open borders, it has no trade barriers between members, it has requirements of each government as to what can be taxed and how much, it has actual laws which circumscribe the national laws on things like inspection and quality of all kinds of goods. It has a single currency, which you must be aware unifies production and unifies markets.

If you're comparing the EU to the US (which has had a single currency and unifying rules for much longer) then the EU is "loose". Relatively. But to call it "just a loose economic cooperation organization" is absurd.