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

Resolved: The United Nations is terminally [paralyzed]: the democratic world needs a forum of its own Con has offered an excellent debate topic. The idea of forming a new organization of democratic nations was raised by John McCain during the last election, but it never drew the attention it deserved. 1. The United Nations performs the function of distributing aid to Third World nations, and, very occasionally, interjecting peacekeeping forces into conflicts not involving major powers. The United Nations should be preserved for those purposes. 2. However, the United Nations is structured in a way that allows non-democratic nations to block advancement of the interests of democratic nations. It does things like elect Libya, "One of the world's worst abusers of human rights" to chair its Human Rights Commission. http://www.capmag.com... It cannot even pass a resolution condemning genocide in Darfur or Zimbabwe, let alone do anything about it. http://www.newzimbabwe.com... All effective action is blocked by non-democracies. The UN is overwhelmingly a podium for authoritarian nations seeking to suppress human rights and keep dictators in power. 3. Democracies have an interest in promoting democracy and advancing human rights. Moreover, there are certain circumstances when action in favor of democracy and human rights are called for, and the United Nations is paralyzed from taking such actions. Therefore, it is reasonable for democracies to establish and maintain a separate organization to pursue the common interests of democracies. The United Nations headquarters should be moved to Nairobi, Kenya, or some such location, to better serve the interests of the Third World and of dictators who control actions, but at much lower cost. A new league of democracies should be established at the present UN site in New York. The new organization of democracies should employ a weighted voting system so that the large and economically advanced democracy get more say. 4. The United Nations as constituted is profoundly corrupt. The United States is funding the lavish UN bureaucracies that are rank with bribery and bid rigging. http://www.washingtonpost.com... The UN supported Saddam's regime by allowing oil-for-food money to be channeled away from the people to the government of Iraq. http://www.foxnews.com... A new organization can be constituted in such a way that safeguards are included to prevent rampant corruption. Democracies are far less likely to view bribery and corruption with "business as usual" attitude that permeates the UN. 5. Con argues, "This will increase international tensions between the democratic and non-democratic world and will completely untie all of the work that the [U]nited [N]ations has done during it's active years." 5a. I don't doubt that authoritarian regimes are happier when they are not effectively opposed. There are even happier when authoritarianism is advanced. The question is why those interested in democracy and human rights should want to make those opposed happy. The world would be improved if genocidal despots were continually worried about international action, rather that living in the comfort of knowing that they are free from international criticism and international action. Let them be tense. 5b. What exactly is "all the work the [U]nited [N]ations has done" that would be undone? They have distributed humanitarian aid, a good thing. How would that be undone? Is there any possibility that poor nations would refuse aid on the grounds that a new organization devoted to democracy and human rights has come into existence? 6. "Don't you think this would be a repetition of history like Wilson's league of nations only accepting 'friendly countries' but crumbled in the end because not enough countries were in the league?" 6a. No. The League of Nations was neither restricted to friendly countries nor democratic countries. It's fifteen members included Germany, Italy, and Japan -- the Axis Powers. http://en.wikipedia.org... One of the limitations of the League of Nations was that the US declined to join. That would not be a problem with a new league of democracies. Moreover, the criteria proposed for the new organization is not that countries be friendly, but rather that they be democratic. We also now know that many different organizations of nations can operate compatibly in the world. For example, NATO functioned effectively to oppose genocide in Bosnia while the UN remained paralyzed. Would it have been better for genocide to be allowed, on the grounds that undercutting UN power might create tensions? ------------- 7. The UN accomplishes some worthwhile things in spite of it's general paralysis, and therefore it ought to be preserved for those purposes. However, a new organization of democracies could take an active role in promoting human rights and democracy. It could do things that the UN is incapable of doing, like condemning genocide and authoritarian suppression. It could be structured to avoid corruption. It would at minimum give a voice to those favoring democracy and human rights. The resolution is affirmed.