IS THERE NEED TO REVITALIZE UNITED NATIONS

This has been an excellent debate and as I begin my final argument, I wish to thank my esteemed opponent for bringing up the topic and debating in such an intelligent and thoughtful way. My esteemed opponent has stated that he believes the UN "is the best bet for the world peace and progress." Yet he is unable to give an example of how the UN has even come close to achieving this. Nor is he able to since there are no examples of such. He further states that should the UN be disbanded that it would lead to "the powerful nations dominating the entire world, irrespective of merits of the issues." Isn't that what we have now? The United States, Britain, China and others dominate the world stage because we are the most powerful and we all act in our own best interest. That's life in the big city, whether there is a UN or not. And that is the way it has to be unless each country gives up their national sovereignty to create a one planet nation. I cringe at the thought of what happens to the little things like individual freedom and liberty if this ever does occur. >>>Yet we have many hot spots like Terrorism which emerged as threat number one to global peace. The unresolved disputes in the middle- east, the violence in Srilanka, unresolved Indo-Pak disputes, are among the major concerns before the world.<<< And the UN has done what to resolve these grave issues? Natta, nothing, zip, zero. It is the United States in action with the other major nations that are doing something about Islamic Terrorism, problems in the Middle East, etc that are working to resolve these issues. Either the United States acting unilaterally or the United States acting as a broker to achieve peace has helped to resolve (at least temporarily) these issues, while the UN sits on its collective arse doing nothing but writing resolutions. In your beloved India, how many times has the US stepped in to broker peace between India and Pakistan? I want to say at least three times in my 40 years of living. I am going strictly by memory there so I may be wrong. So now, let's go over your steps for revamping/revitalizing the UN: >>>1. To implement its goals UN needs a lot of money. The principles governing contributions by member states must be revised keeping in view the changed realities. If each country pays 1% of their budget allocation, whether the nation is poor or rich, the UN will have so much of funds to carry out the tasks before it. It is the small price that each member need to pay. <<< An international tax? Like the major countries of the world don't have enough tax problems my opponent suggests that we tax them more. Now he's going to say that this isn't a tax, but let me remind him that governments don't earn money. They take money from their citizens to pay the bills. Plus, how are Africa and other third world countries, which can't even pay their bills now, going to deal with a 1% tax on their entire federal budget. What effect is this going to have on their economy? >>>4. The UN must be located in a neutral land preferably an island without any interference from the other nations. <<< Now this I have no problem with. Get them out of the US. >>>5. UN must have an effective mechanism that prevents the outbreak of conflicts. In the event of out break, UN must take over the administration of that country till the situation improves. <<< There is no mechanism that can prevent war. Until our race grows to a point that we can overcome the violent tendencies within us then, to quote Plato (I think it was him anyway) "Only the dead have seen the end of war". Don't get me wrong. It's a good thought. But completely unrealistic in this part of the 21st century. We also have that little problem with national sovereignty. But I think that is the next point he makes. >>>6. Countries must redefine what sovereignty means in the present day world.<<< Here's what sovereignty means from a national standpoint. Self-governing; independent: a sovereign state. I think what my opponent is recommending here is a one planet government. I shudder at the thought. Unless of course it is the United States Constitution that is the governing document. But what is the likelihood of that? >>>7. In facing common threats like terrorism, UN must be given a lead role.<<< The US has gone to the UN in each of the armed conflicts that we have taken part in since the advent of the UN. At which point they write up some pretty resolutions but that is it. This has been tried and failed miserably. Just ask the government of Darfur right now. In an attempt to save space, I have only addressed the items on his list that had an effect on the planet as a whole. The rest is internal working or idealistic rhetoric that sounds great. >>>When you talk of American tax payer's money going to fund countries that vote against America, you must be also knowing how much America spends on fighting or preventing terrorist acts. It is close to 500 Billion dollars annually according to some reports. America and the world together through UN can fight better against the common enemies that ensure a peaceful world. US alone how ever mighty or powerful it may be will be able to fight against terrorism in isolation. What is needed is understanding the common causes and common solutions and UN is the right platform. <<< I seem to remember our President, two different Secretaries' of Defense and our UN Ambassador going before the UN asking for help in battling Islamic Terrorism. What did we get in return? Nothing! Got told that we were over reacting to 9/11 and even though we give trillions of dollars to help foreign disaster areas, we are the bad guys and are demonized for going after the terrorists. We have some allies in the War on Terror, but their constituencies are voting them out of office and putting in wimps who will not stand up to Islamic Terrorism. How many times has someone brought up going to Darfur and doing something about the genocide going on there before the UN? Actually, shouldn't the UN be jumping at the bit to send peacekeepers into Darfur? Isn't that its supposed job? In the limited space that I have left, let me explain what scares me most about the UN. That is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Now this document lists out many wonderful and supposed rights that we as humans have. Much of which is utter nonsense and is not a "right" at all. But the part that scares me comes straight out of Article 29: "3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." This statement right here completely negates the whole concept of freedom, liberty or rights. What they are saying is that all these things are privileges that can be taken from the individual at the whim of the UN. That equals a police state and I'll have no part of it. I'll close this argument in the words of Patrick Henry: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Thank you.