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

Con is accurately giving voice to many of the general beliefs about the UN and alternatives. That makes it a good debate. Con departed from my numbering system. I'll start by using his: 1. Con states, "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." Con errs in two respects: a. Just because all nations in a new organization are democracies, there is nothing beyond a very limited unity of purpose. I think all in a forum for democracies would agree that genocide in Darfur and criminal rule in Zimbabwe ought to be condemned. Possibly something a bit more, like sanctions, could be launched. That would be an improvement over the UN. However, for example, there are dimmer prospects of achieving unity of actions with respect to, say, Iran or Afghanistan. The Europeans are not support effective economic sanctions against Iran, for example, because they feel too dependent upon Iran's oil. b. Neither the UN nor a new league of democracies is comparable to a government. The organizations cannot demand member armies enforce anything, nor could the organizations demand money to pay for anything. Both military support and finances come from voluntary contributions that any member can withhold at any time. If 95% agree, the remaining 5% need not contribute. That makes the power inherently limited. A new league would remain mainly a forum, albeit with better prospects for limited action. 2. Con asks, "But could anyone name one political establishment, organisation or government that is not corrupt in the slightest?" Probably not. But that does not make the more corrupt equal to the less corrupt. It's better to be less corrupt. Similarly, a new league of democracies won't solve every problem. It suffices that it solves a few more than the UN. 3. Con gives the 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." The greatest step in relations between the US and China was Nixon's extension of diplomatic recognition to China and subsequent talks with chairman Mao. That happened before China was admitted to the UN, so it clearly was not a product of UN membership. Since China was put on the Security Council, their role has be mainly to veto effective action against nations supporting terrorism. This has not promoted US-Chinese relations. If the UN disappeared entirely, it would have little effect on the relationship. However, the proposal is not to abolish the UN. Whatever good comes from it, although it is difficult to see any, would remain. 4. Con asserts without proof or logical argument that forming a league of democracies would plunge the world into a great depression. Currently, the UN plays no role whatsoever in discussions or agreements regarding the world economy. It is unlikely that a new league of democracies would have a much greater role. As Con pointed out separately, that is the role of the G8 and the G20. It would remain so. The reason is that economic matters are best resolved by the large economic powers. Having either small democracies or small authoritarian regimes represent would not aid resolution of the issues. 5. The point stands that the League of Nations did not fail due to exclusion of authoritarian regimes. Japan, Italy, and Germany were admitted. It doesn't matter that Germany was a democracy when admitted and later became authoritarian. If having dictatorships is the key to success, the League of Nation should have then succeeded. 6. Con claims that it would be a violation of human rights to discriminate against dictatorships by excluding them from a league of democracies. Con has an errant concept of human rights. It is perfectly correct, for example, to discriminate against child molesters by excluding them from the Girl Scouts. Doing so involves discrimination on three separate grounds: age, gender, and past behavior; yet it is still not a violation of the sex offender's rights or anyone else's rights. Human rights relate to freedom of speech, freedom from and enslavement, and other such basic freedoms. There is no human right that protects dictators in their trampling the rights of others. 7. The G8 and the G20 exist for the purpose of discussing and acting upon economic problems. It's well that they do, because the UN paralysis means the UN does nothing with respect to such issues. However, human rights and the advancement of democracy are not primary purposes of the G8 or the G20. Such issues inevitably arise from time-to-time, but they are peripheral to those organizations. There is no organization that serves the worldwide interest of advancing democracy and human rights. ----------------- Con has not adequately responded to by contention that reducing tensions through inaction against dictatorship and genocide is not a compelling reason for inaction. I grant that dictators are less tense when allowed to do as they please. I suppose that criminals are less upset when the police are not after them. However, such minimization of tensions with respect to dictators is temporary. For example, Iran is building atomic weapons. The UN gives them a forum for expressing their desire to wipe Israel off the earth. The UN is paralyzed from criticizing Iran, let alone organizing effective sanctions. The result is that Iran sees no reason not to proceed with their agenda of building atomic weapons. A new league of democracies would certainly condemn Iran soundly and spell out the extreme consequences of irresponsible Iranian action. A new league has a chance of imposing effective sanctions or, ultimately, a blockade that would collapse the fragile Iranian economy. No doubt that tensions would be raised in the short run. However, appeasing Iran in the short run will ultimately result in either the Israel or the US taking out the Iranian atomic capability, or, if that does not happen, then a rapid expansion of atomic weapons as Saudi Arabia and a host of other nations build nuclear weapons to deter the Iranians. The scenario of short term appeasement to reduce tensions leading to long term disaster has been played out many times in history. The democracies world needs a forum of its own. The UN is a paralyzed to the point where it cannot even criticize genocide or authoritarian rule. It won't solve every problem, but it will at least permit genocide and authoritarian rule to be criticized, and it will open up possibilities of effective action where now none exists. It will also minimize the effects of UN corruption set an example for sound international diplomacy.