The United Nations is terminally paralysed: the democratic world needs a forum of its own

We appear to agree on several points. The UN is in fact terminally paralyzed. We a resolution to condemn genocide in Darfur cannot get out of committee, we know that nothing positive is going to happen. We also agree that the UN is corrupt. Further, we agree that authoritarian regimes are happiest when they are not challenged. If they are allowed to do whatever they wish without opposition, they are content and the world has at that moment less tension. From this Con concludes that it is best to do nothing to upset paralysis in the face of tyrannical rulers. I disagree. Democracies need a forum where the common interests of democracy and human rights can be discussed and advanced. 1. Con argues that "the UN needs 'improvement' and is not just left to one side." Yes, the UN needs improvement. We agree that the UN is paralyzed, so it cannot be improved. The reason it is paralyzed is that dictatorships can block any improvement. That's why the UN should be preserved for the things which it accomplishes, such as distributing aid, but in other respects it ought to be supplanted by a new organization for the promotion of human rights and democracy. Con reasserts that allowing a forum for democracies would be "too powerful." There is no real likelihood of that, as witnessed by the inability to get Europe to agree to such modest proposals as instituting a boycott against Iran to stop Iran's development of nuclear weapons. In any case, there is no danger from power concentrated in the promotion of human rights and democracy. Pro asks, "What stops a national government from condemning another nation or imposing trade sanctions upon it?" The question presupposes that there is no advantage in collective discussion or collective action, as opposed to individual action. If so, then the UN should be promptly disposed of entirely, because it costs money and provides no advantage over individual action. A forum for democracies would allow issues to be discussed to benefit from the differing perspectives of democratic nations. we agree that the UN is paralyzed, so that cannot happen without a new forum. 2. Con provided no rebuttal to my claim that advancing towards a less corrupt organization is worthwhile even if perfection is not achieved. Less corruption is better. 3. Con claims that the U.K. established diplomatic relations with China in 1972 as a consequence of UN efforts, but he offers no proof of that. The real diplomatic breakthrough in 1972 was crafted by Henry Kissinger paving the way for Nixon's visit. http://en.wikipedia.org... That is what marked the shift in Western diplomacy, including the UK, from confrontation to engagement. The UN was not involved. 4. Con constructs a fantasy and claims it to be a logical argument. Speaking in favor of democracy has no chance of precipitating a worldwide trade breakdown. Foreign trade is primarily determined by economics, not ideology. Europe and Iran engage in trade because Europe needs oil and Iran needs money. Neither embraces the others ideology in the slightest. The same is true between the US and China. France and Germany broke the sanctions against Saddam's Iraq so they could buy oil and sell conventional weapons. It's true that occasionally a boycott can be sustained against a nation, but it is rare and temporary, and never against a major power. 5. Con asserts, "The point of democracy is to listen to the people, not to discount certain group's opinion. In an only-democratic forum, surely they are doing exactly this by discounting non-democratic nations?" No, that is not the point of democracy. the point is to advance and protect human rights. For example, Iran states they want to kill all the Jews. Pro seems to believe that so long as we listen patiently to that viewpoint and do nothing, that democracy succeeds. That's not so. There is something fundamentally wrong with genocide that makes it inferior to the opposing viewpoint. Con's fundamental error throughout this debate is assuming that dictatorship has a fundamental equality with nations respecting human rights. Con went so far as to suppose that democracies acting together to promote human rights would be akin to criminals having their own police force! Even dictators do not defend their unethical practices. Virtually all countries subscribe to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, it is just that some countries then ignore it. The American Founders declared human rights to be self-evident truth's, meaning derived from the observed nature of mankind and not just opinion. Con places an extremely high value on reducing international tensions. Con states, "In the past, blockades have created long-term rivalries in the past, one being the ‘Berlin Blockade' during 1948 – 1949 between the Western Allies and the USSR. That tension lasted until 1991! That's a whole 43 years and cannot be classed as a "short run". What's more is that during that time, the USA was in danger of being wiped of the map by Cuba." So if saving Berlin was wrong because it increased tensions with the Soviet Union, what would the correct course of action have been? Obviously, according to Pro it would be continuous appeasement by granting whatever the Soviets desired. Refusing any soviet demand would increase world tensions. The Cuban missile crisis was about the U.S. refusing to allow the Soviets to set up missile sites in Cuba. Pro would have allowed the installation of missiles on the grounds in would have reduced tensions. Neville Chamberlain appeasement to achieve "peace in our time" never produces more than a temporary peace. Appeasement did not forestall World War II. Appeasing the Soviets or Iran or China in the name of "reducing tensions" would only lead to further aggression. Having a United Nations to foster appeasement is not helpful to the cause of human rights. Con points out that there is a "Community of Democracies" that has accomplished nothing of substance. What happened to Pro's argument that such a think would bring economic collapse and split the world apart? Quite obviously, the natural state of such organizations is to accomplish little. However, the chances of elevating an organization of democracies to the point of taking some useful action is a much better bet than the United Nations. The way to elevate a forum for democracies is, as I suggested at the outset, to move the present UN headquarters to a Third World location like Nairobi. That would enhance the useful UN function of administering aid to the Third World, it would provide dictators with an audience for their UN tirades, and it would remove the the massive UN corruption from New York City to a much less expensive location. This would free up the site in New York for a new organization of democracies, and shift the focus of attention to advancing democracy and human rights. Pro admits that he cannot point to any specific achievement of the United Nations that would be undone forming a new organization of democracies. Instead, Pro claims that the virtue of the UN lies in its mere existence. If so, there is no problem, because the UN would continue to exist. The change is that we would also have an international organization with the potential for accomplishing something. The democratic world needs a forum of its own. The resolution is affirmed.