Replacing the UN with a new sans-China organization

[North German Realm]

Maybe its the Sinophobe in me that says this, but as much as it is a good idea -though hypocritical given its unique targeting of China alone when there are so many other rogue states around also- Just forming a No China's Club and hoping everyone leaves the UN to join it is... not really a smart nor feasible idea. Mind you, China should definitely be treated somewhat harsher than how Rhodesia was during the Cold War; have its recognition as a legitimate state revoked until it is partitioned into at least four states, but that also is impossible.

[Thermodolia]

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should be addressed in the UN, it is 1) the veto privileges of the USA, Russia, China, UK, France (furthermore an outdated list consisting of the WWII winners), and 2) its pathetic enforcement powers that allow most nations to simply disregard whatever the UN says.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

It was never going to work. Especially not when nations have veto power over everything, and the UN can’t enforce any mandate.

[Thermodolia]

If you're removing China, kick the U.S. out, too.

Let’s just dismantle the entire thing

[North German Realm]

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.

It was never going to work. Especially not when nations have veto power over everything, and the UN can’t enforce any mandate.

The solution to the veto is a counter-veto. It's very hilarious to me that people didn't add it in some form when they were creating the Security Council. (Either a "another country vetoes your veto" or "the majority of the SC votes against your veto" thing, or something else). Surely they didn't think the five would always agree on every topic?

[Thermodolia]

The UN already defeats the purpose of the UN

The UN is not perfect, but it does very important work and we would certainly be worse off without them. It has many faults, but they mostly stem from countries not cooperating with the UN, which cannot really be blamed on the UN as a body.

Name one. Because the peacekeepers have massive issues with rape and sexual assault. The human rights committee is chaired by KSA and loaded with nations that think human rights are optional. The entire UNSC alone defeats the purpose of the UN and the fact that the UN is toothless to do anything.

Face it dude you’re beloved organization is worthless. The order would be better maintained by regional organizations like NATO, EU, Warsaw Pact, AU, ASEAN, and the like

[Thermodolia]

It was never going to work. Especially not when nations have veto power over everything, and the UN can’t enforce any mandate.

The solution to the veto is a counter-veto. It's very hilarious to me that people didn't add it in some form when they were creating the Security Council. (Either a "another country vetoes your veto" or "the majority of the SC votes against your veto" thing, or something else). Surely they didn't think the five would always agree on every topic?

The veto was in there because it came out of FDRs four policemen: USA, UK, USSR, and ROC. They where to have overwhelming power over their respective regions of influence.

France was only added at the insistence of De Gaul

[North German Realm]

The solution to the veto is a counter-veto. It's very hilarious to me that people didn't add it in some form when they were creating the Security Council. (Either a "another country vetoes your veto" or "the majority of the SC votes against your veto" thing, or something else). Surely they didn't think the five would always agree on every topic?

The veto was in there because it came out of FDRs four policemen: USA, UK, USSR, and ROC. They where to have overwhelming power over their respective regions of influence.

France was only added at the insistence of De Gaul

The fact still remains that the four, if not five, countries could, regardless, not agree on all situations. So what if the US (and the USSR and RoC) really wanted something that the UK really didn't?

[Novus America]

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.

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.

Given the many UN members have fought many wars with many other members if the goal is peace the UN is not getting that.

And the WHO is NOT taking the lead in the Coronavirus case, it is largely marginalized with each country pursuing its own response, often and ignoring the WHO’s advice which changes anyways.

Remember the WHO said “no travel bans” initially, only to be ignored and once the PRC supported travel bans it did too. The WHO is not even run by a real doctor, but some corrupt politician from a regime not surprisingly very close to the PRC.
The WHO has been often ignored and widely criticized, and they deserve that.

But I do agree the question is in the title is over simple. Obviously we need to strengthen some alternatives to the UN that exclude hostile regimes, but the UN would presumably still exist as it does.

Just we need alternatives that work better as well, and those by necessity could not try to shoehorn completely incompatible states into the same box, or they would just end up the same place as the UN.

[Novus America]

The veto was in there because it came out of FDRs four policemen: USA, UK, USSR, and ROC. They where to have overwhelming power over their respective regions of influence.

France was only added at the insistence of De Gaul

The fact still remains that the four, if not five, countries could, regardless, not agree on all situations. So what if the US (and the USSR and RoC) really wanted something that the UK really didn't?

Sure, but the thing is despite being “allies” none really trusted the others, and none wanted to be bound by something it could not control.

Although it is notable EVERY member of NATO has a veto yet it is still more functional than the UN.

It is not so much the existence of a veto, but the fact the UN incorporates states and systems that simply cannot work together well.

[Thermodolia]

The veto was in there because it came out of FDRs four policemen: USA, UK, USSR, and ROC. They where to have overwhelming power over their respective regions of influence.

France was only added at the insistence of De Gaul

The fact still remains that the four, if not five, countries could, regardless, not agree on all situations. So what if the US (and the USSR and RoC) really wanted something that the UK really didn't?

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

[Christian Confederation]

Place sanctions on non democratic nations until they join the rest of the world. Give Taiwan recognition the true and democratic China. Hong Kong is opposed by China so we send UN peacekeeping forces to keep the Chinese out of Hong Kong. South China sea, UN can cease the artificial islands from China and keep the international waters secured whall allowing the other nations there rightful waters.
Sure China is biligurant but there not suicidal, if the largest armada ever assembled comes to there shores flying the flag of many many nations they will stand down.
TlDR: Use Sanctions and Peacekeeping forces to force Authoritarian nations to become democratic like the rest of the world.

[Novus America]

The fact still remains that the four, if not five, countries could, regardless, not agree on all situations. So what if the US (and the USSR and RoC) really wanted something that the UK really didn't?

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

True the original lines were more along the lines of this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline ... rg_map.jpg

What many originally planned the world to look like after the war, during the war was different than what actually happened. Only the USSR really got most of what it the more radical ideas planned.

[Christian Confederation]

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.


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

Given the many UN members have fought many wars with many other members if the goal is peace the UN is not getting that.

And the WHO is NOT taking the lead in the Coronavirus case, it is largely marginalized with each country pursuing its own response, often and ignoring the WHO’s advice which changes anyways.

Remember the WHO said “no travel bans” initially, only to be ignored and once the PRC supported travel bans it did too. The WHO is not even run by a real doctor, but some corrupt politician from a regime not surprisingly very close to the PRC.
The WHO has been often ignored and widely criticized, and they deserve that.

But I do agree the question is in the title is over simple. Obviously we need to strengthen some alternatives to the UN that exclude hostile regimes, but the UN would presumably still exist as it does.

Just we need alternatives that work better as well, and those by necessity could not try to shoehorn completely incompatible states into the same box, or they would just end up the same place as the UN.

WHO is a joke. It can only work if ran by a board of great doctors. The CDC, EU, Australia, UK, Canada, And Japan.

A 11 member board with the CDC and European equivalent having permanent seats. 1 Chairman and 10 members, Chairman breaks any ties and acts as spokesperson, chairman and board members server staggered 8 year terms with the chairman serving 6 years with possibility to be reelected.
One day China may be able to join the WHO health board but as long there a Comunist dictatorship they're bared from joining.

[Purpelia]

One day China may be able to join the WHO health board but as long there a Comunist dictatorship they're bared from joining.

So this entire thread is essentially arguing that we should punish a nation of 1.4 billion people for not participating in an organization that is happy to let those 1.4 billion die of disease because they consider human life to be worth less than political disagreement. Am I the only one who sees the idiocy and plain injustice in that? Am I the only one who thinks that this is insanity?

[Vistulange]

One day China may be able to join the WHO health board but as long there a Comunist dictatorship they're bared from joining.

So this entire thread is essentially arguing that we should punish a nation of 1.4 billion people for not participating in an organization that is happy to let those 1.4 billion die of disease because they consider human life to be worth less than political disagreement. Am I the only one who sees the idiocy and plain injustice in that? Am I the only one who thinks that this is insanity?

Nah, a lot of NSG members in general are okay with dispensing with the well-being of people who they don't feel any personal connection with.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

One day China may be able to join the WHO health board but as long there a Comunist dictatorship they're bared from joining.

So this entire thread is essentially arguing that we should punish a nation of 1.4 billion people for not participating in an organization that is happy to let those 1.4 billion die of disease because they consider human life to be worth less than political disagreement. Am I the only one who sees the idiocy and plain injustice in that? Am I the only one who thinks that this is insanity?

Those 1.4 billion people are; and for a much longer period of time already have been; put at risk by the same government putting the rest of us at risk.

Perhaps greater risk. I don't know how the hell anyone could go in to investigate just how much worse the problem is than China's letting on without putting themselves at risk too. How long do you figure before someone at the ISS spots mass graves in Wuhan through a telescope?

[Novus America]

One day China may be able to join the WHO health board but as long there a Comunist dictatorship they're bared from joining.

So this entire thread is essentially arguing that we should punish a nation of 1.4 billion people for not participating in an organization that is happy to let those 1.4 billion die of disease because they consider human life to be worth less than political disagreement. Am I the only one who sees the idiocy and plain injustice in that? Am I the only one who thinks that this is insanity?

Umm this is a complete non sequitur. Removing the PRC from the WHO would not cause everyone in the PRC to die of disease, any more than not being in the WHO caused everyone in Taiwan to die of disease. You know the PRC has its own CDC right? And that that, and the PRC political authorities who control it, not WHO actually determines PRC policies towards disease?

[Novus America]

So this entire thread is essentially arguing that we should punish a nation of 1.4 billion people for not participating in an organization that is happy to let those 1.4 billion die of disease because they consider human life to be worth less than political disagreement. Am I the only one who sees the idiocy and plain injustice in that? Am I the only one who thinks that this is insanity?

Nah, a lot of NSG members in general are okay with dispensing with the well-being of people who they don't feel any personal connection with.

Taiwan is not a member of WHO but has much better health, disease control and well being than the PRC, which is a member...

[Vistulange]

Nah, a lot of NSG members in general are okay with dispensing with the well-being of people who they don't feel any personal connection with.

Taiwan is not a member of WHO but has much better health, disease control and well being than the PRC, which is a member...

Right.

I also fail to see the connection between my post and yours.

[Novus America]

Taiwan is not a member of WHO but has much better health, disease control and well being than the PRC, which is a member...

Right.

I also fail to see the connection between my post and yours.

The point is removing the PRC from the WHO would be very unlikely to actually change the well being of the people in the PRC.

[Kragholm Free States]

Fuck that, just replace China. China has always been horrifically totalitarian, whether under an Emperor, warlords, or the Communist Party. It does not deserve nationhood; its very existence is conducive to human suffering on an ever greater scale.

[Vistulange]

Right.

I also fail to see the connection between my post and yours.

The point is removing the PRC from the WHO would be very unlikely to actually change the well being of the people in the PRC.

That wasn't pointed specifically at the notion of removing the PRC from the WHO; it was more pointed towards the people in NSG who make statements that would, if done in real life, impact the lives of many people in unfortunate ways, with absolutely no regard for this notion. It's try-hard edginess, and it doesn't even look cynical, it just looks out of context and admittedly, a tad funny to see.

[Novus America]

The point is removing the PRC from the WHO would be very unlikely to actually change the well being of the people in the PRC.

That wasn't pointed specifically at the notion of removing the PRC from the WHO; it was more pointed towards the people in NSG who make statements that would, if done in real life, impact the lives of many people in unfortunate ways, with absolutely no regard for this notion. It's try-hard edginess, and it doesn't even look cynical, it just looks out of context and admittedly, a tad funny to see.

While some people do that, clearly though the entirety of this thread is not that. The quality of life for people in the PRC is not based on the PRC being a UN member clearly as the non UN member ROC has a much higher quality of life.

[North German Realm]

The fact still remains that the four, if not five, countries could, regardless, not agree on all situations. So what if the US (and the USSR and RoC) really wanted something that the UK really didn't?

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.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

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.