Page 1 of 15

Replacing the UN with a new sans-China organization

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 12:34 pm
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha
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

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 12:54 pm
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States
Because that would defeat the purpose of the United Nations.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 12:58 pm
by Tinhampton
If that's what you're seeking, why can't/shouldn't the UN (etc.) just strip PR China of its membership and hand it to Taiwan instead - like it used to before Nixon's olive branch? Or is this a matter of waning Taiwanese recognition among world governments?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:01 pm
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States
Tinhampton wrote:If that's what you're seeking, why can't/shouldn't the UN (etc.) just strip PR China of its membership and hand it to Taiwan instead - like it used to before Nixon's olive branch? Or is this a matter of waning Taiwanese recognition among world governments?

The Security Council would never agree to nominating Taiwan for membership.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:03 pm
by Kowani
There should be a disclaimer on this thread: Proposal not based on reality.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:08 pm
by Lord Dominator
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and South Africa are all founding members, and they weren't removed at any point since then.

North Korea is a current member.

What reason do we have that we need to remove just China?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:13 pm
by Estanglia
Why remove just China?

If we're gonna replace the UN with a sans-China organisation, take the opportunity and kick out other authoritarian states.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:20 pm
by Tinhampton
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:If that's what you're seeking, why can't/shouldn't the UN (etc.) just strip PR China of its membership and hand it to Taiwan instead - like it used to before Nixon's olive branch? Or is this a matter of waning Taiwanese recognition among world governments?

The Security Council would never agree to nominating Taiwan for membership.

As I understand, PR China was seated by a General Assembly resolution, not a Security Council one. Why would it be different now?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:27 pm
by Heloin
The Organisation who's original point is just avoiding World War Three by making people talk more, you want to remove a nuclear superpower with a massive standing army from that?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:27 pm
by Diahon
No, that is not how you go about this. With China being an active hotspot for zoonotic pathogens, its cooperation is essential if future epidemics are to be curtailed before they become full-blown pandemics.

Global cooperation means global cooperation, not vital countries going rogue or being excluded. Even if you think lowly of the current leadership, you cannot think lowly of the people it ostensibly serves, and which would suffer under any arrangement that effectively ostracizes China.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:28 pm
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States
Tinhampton wrote:
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:The Security Council would never agree to nominating Taiwan for membership.

As I understand, PR China was seated by a General Assembly resolution, not a Security Council one. Why would it be different now?

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.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:50 pm
by LRON
What an utterly silly and ridiculous proposal.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 1:56 pm
by Diahon
LRON wrote:What an utterly silly and ridiculous proposal.


Not more ridiculous than the world we actually live in.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 2:10 pm
by Couray
I'm all for the general "screw the PRC" sentiment here, but the UN's whole purpose is to bring together those of opposing viewpoints, to you know, avoid misunderstandings and wars.
Tinhampton wrote:
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:The Security Council would never agree to nominating Taiwan for membership.

As I understand, PR China was seated by a General Assembly resolution, not a Security Council one. Why would it be different now?

As unfortunate as it is, China has a good deal of the world in an economic choke-hold. If the PRC were to go into a recession or otherwise became economically irrelevant (which they won't anytime soon imo), then replacing them with the Republic of China could be possible. That is, if they don't have a strong African bloc supporting them by then.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 2:24 pm
by United Muscovite Nations
Diahon wrote:
LRON wrote:What an utterly silly and ridiculous proposal.


Not more ridiculous than the world we actually live in.

No, it is. "the forum we created to discuss diplomatic issues in the hopes of resolving them without military conflict should kick out the world's second most powerful country and its largest economy" is a farce.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 2:25 pm
by United Muscovite Nations
Couray wrote:I'm all for the general "screw the PRC" sentiment here, but the UN's whole purpose is to bring together those of opposing viewpoints, to you know, avoid misunderstandings and wars.
Tinhampton wrote:As I understand, PR China was seated by a General Assembly resolution, not a Security Council one. Why would it be different now?

As unfortunate as it is, China has a good deal of the world in an economic choke-hold. If the PRC were to go into a recession or otherwise became economically irrelevant (which they won't anytime soon imo), then replacing them with the Republic of China could be possible. That is, if they don't have a strong African bloc supporting them by then.

No it wouldn't lol. They gave the PRC the ROC's membership when the PRC was an irrelevant backwater.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 2:28 pm
by Heloin
United Muscovite Nations wrote:
Couray wrote:I'm all for the general "screw the PRC" sentiment here, but the UN's whole purpose is to bring together those of opposing viewpoints, to you know, avoid misunderstandings and wars.
As unfortunate as it is, China has a good deal of the world in an economic choke-hold. If the PRC were to go into a recession or otherwise became economically irrelevant (which they won't anytime soon imo), then replacing them with the Republic of China could be possible. That is, if they don't have a strong African bloc supporting them by then.

No it wouldn't lol. They gave the PRC the ROC's membership when the PRC was an irrelevant backwater.

The PRC was an irrelevant backwater, in 1971?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 2:29 pm
by United Muscovite Nations
Heloin wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:No it wouldn't lol. They gave the PRC the ROC's membership when the PRC was an irrelevant backwater.

The PRC was an irrelevant backwater, in 1971?

Yes. It was poorer than Zaire.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 2:35 pm
by Couray
United Muscovite Nations wrote:
Couray wrote:-snip-

No it wouldn't lol. They gave the PRC the ROC's membership when the PRC was an irrelevant backwater.

The ROC of the time would have been much more of an irrelevant backwater, one that was less economically advantageous to support, too. To say that China was completely irrelevant would be ignoring centuries of western powers trying to break their way into Chinese markets.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 2:38 pm
by United Muscovite Nations
Couray wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:No it wouldn't lol. They gave the PRC the ROC's membership when the PRC was an irrelevant backwater.

The ROC of the time would have been much more of an irrelevant backwater, one that was less economically advantageous to support, too. To say that China was completely irrelevant would be ignoring centuries of western powers trying to break their way into Chinese markets.

Trade with China was negligible at the time due to China's Maoist Third Worldist economy and ideology.

The ROC was replaced with the PRC because of a global reality check, not because of politicking.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 2:40 pm
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States
Heloin wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:No it wouldn't lol. They gave the PRC the ROC's membership when the PRC was an irrelevant backwater.

The PRC was an irrelevant backwater, in 1971?

Economically, yes. China really only picked up economical speed in the 90s, which is why you can see all those pictures of large Chinese cities in 1990 and 2010 and see the incredible difference 20 years has made. It was only in the 90s that China tried to participate in international trade, and it boomed.

However, politically, of course, it has always had a very large army capable of exerting force throughout Asia, and in the 70s it had nukes. The combination of the large army and the nukes, as well as its falling out with the USSR, made it an important puzzle piece in the Cold War. Hence, it was given the task to represent China.

The reason the Korean War resolution passed through the Security Council was simply because the USSR was testing its theory that the veto could be cast by abstaining (it could not) and China was represented by US puppet Taiwan.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 2:40 pm
by Heloin
United Muscovite Nations wrote:
Heloin wrote:The PRC was an irrelevant backwater, in 1971?

Yes. It was poorer than Zaire.

And a nuclear nation with one of the largest standing armies on earth. That's really irrelevant ain't it.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 2:41 pm
by Heloin
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:
Heloin wrote:The PRC was an irrelevant backwater, in 1971?

Economically, yes. China really only picked up economical speed in the 90s, which is why you can see all those pictures of large Chinese cities in 1990 and 2010 and see the incredible difference 20 years has made. It was only in the 90s that China tried to participate in international trade, and it boomed.

However, politically, of course, it has always had a very large army capable of exerting force throughout Asia, and in the 70s it had nukes. The combination of the large army and the nukes, as well as its falling out with the USSR, made it an important puzzle piece in the Cold War. Hence, it was given the task to represent China.

The reason the Korean War resolution passed through the Security Council was simply because the USSR was testing its theory that the veto could be cast by abstaining (it could not) and China was represented by US puppet Taiwan.

Which was more my point.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 2:42 pm
by United Muscovite Nations
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:
Heloin wrote:The PRC was an irrelevant backwater, in 1971?

Economically, yes. China really only picked up economical speed in the 90s, which is why you can see all those pictures of large Chinese cities in 1990 and 2010 and see the incredible difference 20 years has made. It was only in the 90s that China tried to participate in international trade, and it boomed.

However, politically, of course, it has always had a very large army capable of exerting force throughout Asia, and in the 70s it had nukes. The combination of the large army and the nukes, as well as its falling out with the USSR, made it an important puzzle piece in the Cold War. Hence, it was given the task to represent China.

The reason the Korean War resolution passed through the Security Council was simply because the USSR was testing its theory that the veto could be cast by abstaining (it could not) and China was represented by US puppet Taiwan.

Their army couldn't even project force into Vietnam successfully and they lacked the ability to deliver their nuclear weapons.

You're being anachronistic, the US only adopted the Sino-Soviet split into its diplomacy after the resolution passed.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 2:42 pm
by Thermodolia
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Because that would defeat the purpose of the United Nations.

The UN already defeats the purpose of the UN