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

Pro given me a strong argument to contend with and I should think that this debate would not be much different from debates that world leaders have. 1. "Non-democratic nations to block advancement of the interests of democratic nations". Pro is effectively saying that a one – party government is better than a multi- party government because there are fewer barriers to cross. I completely understand pro's point because decisions will be made rather quickly, however it's far too powerful. This is much like how a democratic (single party) forum would act. It would have far too much power and policies would be passed without question. The great FDR once tried to do a similar act when he attempted to replace the US Supreme Court with his own judges so he could pass more laws. This would mean that the democratic forum would be ‘profoundly corrupt' - much more than the UN. 2. The UN cannot resolve every problem, nor can a government and nor could a democratic forum. Being only 15 years of age, I'm not an expert on the UN and yes, the UN is corrupt, I'm pretty sure. But could anyone name one political establishment, organisation or government that is not corrupt in the slightest? If one would need an example of a ‘profoundly corrupt' government, one can look at the former Soviet Union – a single party nation (much like an only – democratic forum). One could also look at Zimbabwe and other LEDCs whom the UN (a partnership of democracies and non-democracies) is working to help. 3. Pro: "What exactly is "all the work the [U]nited [N]ations has done" that would be undone? " To find the answer to pro's question, you must look at the bigger picture rather than look at the particular work that the UN has done e. g. humanitarian aid. The UN has done work by simply existing and functioning to bring countries together to work and communicate. Our years of negotiation with countries for peace after battles and wars would be undone because the world would be split into two factions – democratic and non – democratic. For example, since China is not a democracy, they (with a strong economy) would not be able to join – they would be left on the other side of the democratic rift. Our relationship with China would significantly disintegrate and our peace negotiations with them would be undone. 4. During this time, we are going through economic turmoil, trouble in the Middle East and global warming. Creating a democratic league would create tensions (as I previously mentioned) between nations, which would significantly affect the trading industry. This would make the global economy plunge seeing as we're dependant on other nations. One could say that this would be a step into reducing our interdependence but all of our global issues must be tackled by acting together as a globe and a democratic league. This would cause a depression worse than the Great Depression of 1929 which was partially caused by countries not working together properly due to disagreements regarding political stance (history repeating itself? ) 5. a. "The League of Nations was neither restricted to friendly countries nor democratic countries. " 5. b. Germany could not join the league when it was first created due to it still being a dictatorship after the Kaiser fled and because it was the aggressor in WWI . http://en.wikipedia.org... (under Global Representation) but it was accepted into the League under Streseman of the German Weimar Republic (a democracy). The delay in Germany's admittance into the League upset many Germans and their allies (Adolf Hitler) unhappy. However, I understand your point that there were no rules set in stone about who could join the League. 6. I'm glad that pro mentioned ‘human rights' because what pro is saying about non – democracies not being able to join is perceived by me as discrimination and does not demonstrate ‘human rights' and every human has a right not to be discriminated against. 7. If we were to create a new democratic forum, I'm sure that the non – democracies would fight back by creating their own forum. Both forums will make decisions affecting one another and will be hindered by one another thus this new democratic forum will "block advancement of the interests of democratic nations". These two forums could grow to be very much like NATO and COMICON during the Cold War (where America was nearly destroyed by nuclear missiles in Cuba). The battle still goes on today between NATO and practically the entire Middle East, but image the world with two NATO organisations (NATO and a democratic forum) and two COMICON organisations (Middle East and potential non – democratic forum). 8. Finally, I totally agree with pro that we do need to unite for our common interests such as human rights and resolving the economic crisis. But isn't that what the G8 and G20 are for? They have created new energy saving agreements such as International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation . http://en.wikipedia.org... Countries such as China were key in this agreement. , and what's more is that the G20 is made from democracies and non – democracies, much like the UN and is extremely successful. One may argue that the G8 is made from just democracies,but actually the G8 are urging the O5 to join them, the O5 including a non – democratic nation; China . http://en.wikipedia.org... . They are known as the G8 + 5 and in the future, possibly the G13. This shows that the current world leaders are against the idea of a new democratic forum because they are urging non – democracies to join their own democratic forum (hence why John McCain, who developed the democratic forum idea is not a world leader! ) New Democratic Forum = Econonmic Downturn (Another Great Depression) Wars COMICON (version 2. ) More Corruption World Rift (Democratic v Non – Democratic) Too Much Power Breakdown of Cooperation Fall in Trade