Replacing the UN with a new sans-China organization

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

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should be addressed in the UN, it is 1) the veto privileges of the USA, Russia, China, UK, France (furthermore an outdated list consisting of the WWII winners), and 2) its pathetic enforcement powers that allow most nations to simply disregard whatever the UN says.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

The primary purpose of the UN has always been peace. Tell me, how is peace helped by the expulsion of a large number of member states? Which, mind, only alienates them further from the other UN goals.

The criticism aimed at the UN is always that it is not perfect in every single way so it should be abolished, giving way to an international order that gave rise to two world wars. Yeah, that system was perfect alright.

The UN exists for the benefit of its members. If members don’t like it anymore, they can leave. Since they don’t, it is clear that there is lasting benefit to the organisation. Which is clear, especially now that the WHO is taking the lead in fighting corona.

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

A sentiment which only shows how little you know about the EU.

[Nakena]

The primary purpose of the UN has always been peace. Tell me, how is peace helped by the expulsion of a large number of member states? Which, mind, only alienates them further from the other UN goals.

The criticism aimed at the UN is always that it is not perfect in every single way so it should be abolished, giving way to an international order that gave rise to two world wars. Yeah, that system was perfect alright.

The UN exists for the benefit of its members. If members don’t like it anymore, they can leave. Since they don’t, it is clear that there is lasting benefit to the organisation. Which is clear, especially now that the WHO is taking the lead in fighting corona.

I am not in favor of expelling states from the UN, eitherways the fact is that the cred of the org is down near zero and not so since yesterday. I wouldn be surprised if it ends up having a similar fate as the League of Nations and mankind dividing into various hostile power blocs without even the resemblance or facade of any unitary structure. It would be unfortunte but not unsurprising. The WHO also didn did the best either. But isn't limited to that, its this crisis puts a lot of institutions and nations to the test. Some prevail, others fail...

The old international order might not survive the Corona.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

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.

I mean, they're not united.The free competition among EU countries leads to the fact that Germany and France, two powerful countries, dominate the EU economy.Other countries have long been in a weak position.So the EU tends to split on many important issues.
Yes, the EU is relatively loose. After all, they've all given up on the fiscal bamboos, so the EU shouldn't be more powerful, right?

[Shanghai industrial complex]

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.

The United Nations exists for these five countries. The UN is just their steward

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

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.

I mean, they're not united.The free competition among EU countries leads to the fact that Germany and France, two powerful countries, dominate the EU economy.Other countries have long been in a weak position.So the EU tends to split on many important issues.
Yes, the EU is relatively loose. After all, they've all given up on the fiscal bamboos, so the EU shouldn't be more powerful, right?

Loose when compared to federal states. Incredibly tight when compared to other international organisations.

The states in the United States also disagree on things. That does not mean they are not united. The Member States are split on many issues, but they are clearly united on a lot of issues as well.

Imagine if the EU has a common army, one common currency and a government that could issue criminal law. Even then, member states would disagree on matters. WOuld it also be relatively loose, because people disagree? The one does not follow from the other.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

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.

I mean, they're not united.The free competition among EU countries leads to the fact that Germany and France, two powerful countries, dominate the EU economy.Other countries have long been in a weak position.So the EU tends to split on many important issues.
Yes, the EU is relatively loose. After all, they've all given up on the fiscal bamboos, so the EU shouldn't be more powerful, right?

But the EU is a really complex multilayered organisation, with the whole Schengen Area and Eurozone stuff, which include a lot of zone oddities, exemptions and oddly valid additions to rules. So for example, the territory of French Guiana, despite not being in Europe and simply being an overseas department of France, has some of the EU rules applied to it. It is most definitely not loose either, with the complicated web of internal and external investments and trade it has. Plus, it has a whole list for what prices certain things must have in all member states iirc.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The primary purpose of the UN has always been peace. Tell me, how is peace helped by the expulsion of a large number of member states? Which, mind, only alienates them further from the other UN goals.

The criticism aimed at the UN is always that it is not perfect in every single way so it should be abolished, giving way to an international order that gave rise to two world wars. Yeah, that system was perfect alright.

The UN exists for the benefit of its members. If members don’t like it anymore, they can leave. Since they don’t, it is clear that there is lasting benefit to the organisation. Which is clear, especially now that the WHO is taking the lead in fighting corona.

I am not in favor of expelling states from the UN, eitherways the fact is that the cred of the org is down near zero and not so since yesterday. I wouldn be surprised if it ends up having a similar fate as the League of Nations and mankind dividing into various hostile power blocs without even the resemblance or facade of any unitary structure. It would be unfortunte but not unsurprising. The WHO also didn did the best either. But isn't limited to that, its this crisis puts a lot of institutions and nations to the test. Some prevail, others fail...

The old international order might not survive the Corona.

Do you know the difference between the League of Nations and the United Nations?

Apart from the fact that one existed for 20 years and the other has existed for close to 80.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I mean, they're not united.The free competition among EU countries leads to the fact that Germany and France, two powerful countries, dominate the EU economy.Other countries have long been in a weak position.So the EU tends to split on many important issues.
Yes, the EU is relatively loose. After all, they've all given up on the fiscal bamboos, so the EU shouldn't be more powerful, right?

But the EU is a really complex multilayered organisation, with the whole Schengen Area and Eurozone stuff, which include a lot of zone oddities, exemptions and oddly valid additions to rules. So for example, the territory of French Guiana, despite not being in Europe and simply being an overseas department of France, has some of the EU rules applied to it. It is most definitely not loose either, with the complicated web of internal and external investments and trade it has. Plus, it has a whole list for what prices certain things must have in all member states iirc.

The EU is very complex. It brings many benefits to European countries.I'm not denying that.
First of all, I want to agree with your description. The EU has done a good job in economic reunification.But I'm not talking about the design of the system. It's the big trouble that the EU faces when it actually deals with the problem.Countries that use the euro mean handing over their fiscal sovereignty.This means that the EU is responsible for the financial security of these countries,Because these countries can't issue their own national debt.But from the previous crises in Italy and Greece, it can be seen that other member states are not very enthusiastic about it.I think that's why the UK doesn't join the eurozone.

From the beginning, the purpose of the EU was different from that of other international organizations. I think it's a unified Europe to some extent.The EU is not just an economic union, it is also a political union.Its purpose is to make Europe great again.Do you remember in early 2000 when everyone thought that the EU would become a superpower?Before the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, Europeans had other attempt.But the establishment of the European defense community and the European political community failed.The EU lacks these two key joint agreements, so it cannot be a superpower to compete with China and the United States.
But it's a coalition, not a country.I know my idea is unrealistic.But I would like to point out that a unified EU in politics and economy, if it can speak with one voice to the outside world, will be a superpower in essence.

Maybe I expect too much of the EU.I expected him to be the third superpower. If there are three superpowers, the world will be stable. Triangles are stable.

[Thama]

I love the level of seriousness people discuss completely whackjob and stupidly impossible ideas with here.

[Albrenia]

I love the level of seriousness people discuss completely whackjob and stupidly impossible ideas with here.

It's what we do. You may not like it, but this is what peak nonsensical discussion looks like.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I mean, they're not united.The free competition among EU countries leads to the fact that Germany and France, two powerful countries, dominate the EU economy.Other countries have long been in a weak position.So the EU tends to split on many important issues.
Yes, the EU is relatively loose. After all, they've all given up on the fiscal bamboos, so the EU shouldn't be more powerful, right?

Loose when compared to federal states. Incredibly tight when compared to other international organisations.

The states in the United States also disagree on things. That does not mean they are not united. The Member States are split on many issues, but they are clearly united on a lot of issues as well.

Imagine if the EU has a common army, one common currency and a government that could issue criminal law. Even then, member states would disagree on matters. WOuld it also be relatively loose, because people disagree? The one does not follow from the other.

Although states may disagree, the United States has a strong central government. All differences will be unified here, and finally one voice will speak to the outside world.The members of the EU are all sovereign states. This means that if you disagree with the decision of the European Parliament, you can act on your own.But then again, in this way, the small countries within the EU will not be kidnapped by the big powers.Maybe in the end, Europeans value democracy more.There is no way for the EU to use strong policies to support the development of high-tech. In the future, they will gradually fall behind in key technology areas

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Loose when compared to federal states. Incredibly tight when compared to other international organisations.

The states in the United States also disagree on things. That does not mean they are not united. The Member States are split on many issues, but they are clearly united on a lot of issues as well.

Imagine if the EU has a common army, one common currency and a government that could issue criminal law. Even then, member states would disagree on matters. WOuld it also be relatively loose, because people disagree? The one does not follow from the other.

Although states may disagree, the United States has a strong central government. All differences will be unified here, and finally one voice will speak to the outside world.The members of the EU are all sovereign states. This means that if you disagree with the decision of the European Parliament, you can act on your own.But then again, in this way, the small countries within the EU will not be kidnapped by the big powers.Maybe in the end, Europeans value democracy more.There is no way for the EU to use strong policies to support the development of high-tech. In the future, they will gradually fall behind in key technology areas

Ehm... No... the Member States are bound by decisions made by the EU. They are bound by treaty.

[Vistulange]

I love the level of seriousness people discuss completely whackjob and stupidly impossible ideas with here.

It's hilarious when you sit back and just watch from a distance, isn't it?

[Novus America]

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 UN in theory could absolutely, but it simply will not. Although it is incorrect to say it was Nixon, Nixon actually opposed the UN change but the US was outvoted. Nixon made overtures to the PRC but also continued to support and recognize the ROC and keep US troops in Taiwan.

His goal was to use the PRC against the Soviets, but use the ROC to keep a check on the PRC he had no illusions that the PRC was our friend or not potentially dangerous.

It was not until Carter that the US recognized the PRC.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

As such, asking Bruce Aylward why he won't accept Taiwan's membership into the WHO is like asking a store manager why the executives chose to do business in that area; its redundant, and as the map linked above clearly shows, the UN doesn't have much interest in recognising Taiwan by popular international consensus. He doesn't have that power, and the political pandering done by the RTHNK reporter doesn't serve much outside a distinct political purpose. I wonder why the running administrator of a global health agency isn't interested in answering absolutely charged political questions?

If that were what this was about, why would he feel the need to pretend he didn't hear the question, and then ask to skip to the next one? Couldn't he have just been more honest about why he wasn't interested in answering that one?

[Novus America]

I love the level of seriousness people discuss completely whackjob and stupidly impossible ideas with here.

It's what we do. You may not like it, but this is what peak nonsensical discussion looks like.

Although there certainly is a lot of extremes here but the idea of gradually supplanting the UN in many respects with organizations that are more selective and actually enforce membership criteria is not completely insane. And such ideas have been proposed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_of_Democracies

How is having more selective international organizations more crazy than having ones that put completely incompatible systems in the same one, this rendering them ineffective and dysfunctional?

[Novus America]

As such, asking Bruce Aylward why he won't accept Taiwan's membership into the WHO is like asking a store manager why the executives chose to do business in that area; its redundant, and as the map linked above clearly shows, the UN doesn't have much interest in recognising Taiwan by popular international consensus. He doesn't have that power, and the political pandering done by the RTHNK reporter doesn't serve much outside a distinct political purpose. I wonder why the running administrator of a global health agency isn't interested in answering absolutely charged political questions?

If that were what this was about, why would he feel the need to pretend he didn't hear the question, and then ask to skip to the next one? Couldn't he have just been more honest about why he wasn't interested in answering that one?

That is the fundamental issue, he could simply say “Taiwan is not a UN and WHO member by a vote of the general assembly, and I am not in a position to comment on that political matter” but instead he lied. That is the issue with that particular matter.
Just be honest.

But the problem is the whole thing is built on lies.

[Giovenith]

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


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

*** Warned for Flaming and Baiting ***

You don't seem familiar with the way things are done on this website. Take a moment to figure it out, or your stay here won't be long.

The whole video just has this weird undertone of modern anti-communists that are sad that they couldn't live out their fantasies acquired from rewatching Red Dawn on the VCR until the tape reels snap from pure and desperate sexual tension from the world's worst army of balding backseat pilotboiis.

Git gud scrub.

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

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

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.

Stop that. You're tap-dancing close to bait territory.

[Vistulange]

It's what we do. You may not like it, but this is what peak nonsensical discussion looks like.

Although there certainly is a lot of extremes here but the idea of gradually supplanting the UN in many respects with organizations that are more selective and actually enforce membership criteria is not completely insane. And such ideas have been proposed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_of_Democracies

How is having more selective international organizations more crazy than having ones that put completely incompatible systems in the same one, this rendering them ineffective and dysfunctional?

Something being proposed in a scientific journal or two does not make it practically possible to achieve, this is point one.

The United Nations' primary practical purpose is to maintain world peace and prevent another World War from breaking out, and actively excluding states from the international system generally is not conducive to this particular goal, this is point two.

You should generally take into account the context in which various international organisations were formed and established, because apparently, all that is relevant is 2020 and not much else, this is point three.

[New Udonia]

This is ridiculous. China may have its domestic issues, specifically with human rights, but at least they know how to respect the sovereignty of their neighbors.
Let's look at Israel, pushing the boundaries of human rights abuse and trying to start wars with their neighbors.
Oh, and they are the only "developed" nation to not be apart of the Biological Weapons Convention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ory_states
Be fair.

[Novus America]

Although there certainly is a lot of extremes here but the idea of gradually supplanting the UN in many respects with organizations that are more selective and actually enforce membership criteria is not completely insane. And such ideas have been proposed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_of_Democracies

How is having more selective international organizations more crazy than having ones that put completely incompatible systems in the same one, this rendering them ineffective and dysfunctional?

Something being proposed in a scientific journal or two does not make it practically possible to achieve, this is point one.

The United Nations' primary practical purpose is to maintain world peace and prevent another World War from breaking out, and actively excluding states from the international system generally is not conducive to this particular goal, this is point two.

You should generally take into account the context in which various international organisations were formed and established, because apparently, all that is relevant is 2020 and not much else, this is point three.

And because the reforming the UN is impossible it would still continue to exist regardless.
The UN is not and should not be the only or most powerful international organization. Focusing on building up an expanding alternatives is not the worst idea as the UN does not work very well.

If the UN is supposed to be a platform for all countries regardless of any other criteria (but in that case it should in theory include BOTH the PRC and ROC) it could be that, but it is absolutely wrong to say that is why it was created. Actually the UN was originally ONLY the WWII allies, and still in theory requires members to adhere to human rights standards.
The UN never admitted Rhodesia because of its human rights violations too.

What the UN has become today is quite different than what it was intended to be.

[The Holy Therns]

Oh good, I couldn't go another day without Lima reminding us all they think China is a bunch of meanie meanie booboos and then coming up with a completely nonsensical revenge plan against them.

[Novus America]

This is ridiculous. China may have its domestic issues, specifically with human rights, but at least they know how to respect the sovereignty of their neighbors.
Let's look at Israel, pushing the boundaries of human rights abuse and trying to start wars with their neighbors.
Oh, and they are the only "developed" nation to not be apart of the Biological Weapons Convention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ory_states
Be fair.

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?

Oh and:
“China is commonly considered to have an active biological warfare program, including dedicated research and development activities funded and supported by the Government for this purpose.”
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/china/cbw/

Is it really better to sign the BWC and just completely ignore it or be honest that you have no intent to follow it?

[New Udonia]

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.

Oh and:
“China is commonly considered to have an active biological warfare program, including dedicated research and development activities funded and supported by the Government for this purpose.”
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/china/cbw/

Is it really better to sign the BWC and just completely ignore it or be honest that you have no intent to follow it?

No, because by signing it, if they ever were to deploy one they would be in big trouble (although international treaties are really only as good as oral agreements).
If Israel did it, no fan of theirs would bat an eyelash.

[Novus America]

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.

Oh and:
“China is commonly considered to have an active biological warfare program, including dedicated research and development activities funded and supported by the Government for this purpose.”
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/china/cbw/

Is it really better to sign the BWC and just completely ignore it or be honest that you have no intent to follow it?

No, because by signing it, if they ever were to deploy one they would be in big trouble (although international treaties are really only as good as oral agreements).
If Israel did it, no fan of theirs would bat an eyelash.

By what does it entirely belong to the PRC?
Did you read this?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_v._China

“Ruling
There was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within "nine-dash line"
UNCLOS does not provide for a group of islands such as the Spratly Islands to generate maritime zones collectively as a unit
China had breached its obligations under the convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea and Article 94 of UNCLOS concerning maritime safety
China violated its obligations to refrain from aggravating or extending the parties disputes during the pendency of the settlement process”

Umm it does not work that way. Anymore than Mexico owns everything in the Gulf of Mexico just because it is called the Gulf of Mexico. Again this already went to international court and the PRC’s claims found to have no basis in international law.

It does not work that way. You argue is basically “it is not violating Sovereignty if you claim it is yours” well then by the situation Israel is not violating any Sovereignty when it annexes Golan and Jerusalem... you could say “but international law does not support Israel’s claims!”

Okay but it does not support the PRC’s either...

And actually if Israel did use biological weapons it would get a lot of heat too.

At least they are being honest. And not actually violating any treaty, because you cannot violate a treaty you are not party too. Whereas the PRC just signs treaties and completely ignores them.
Now should both sign and ACTUALLY FOLLOW the BWC? Sure but still your attempt at whataboutism falls flat, yes Israel does bad things (but fewer countries recognize Israel too) but your argument is still silly, it is “John Smith is a serial axe murderer”
“But at least he did not shoot a guy like Joe Brown!”