United Nations ponderings...

is it time for the United Nations to have more than 5 veto wielding permanent secutrity council members?

How many members more should be entrusted with the power of veto?

How should such a status be chosen?

Does India or Brazil belong to the club?

How about Japan or Germany?

How about the funding for the projects of the United Nations, should all veto wielding nations be expected to pay the same share? Why not, right now the U.S. pays 28% of the UN budget. Does that mean the U.S. should be granted special, since were paying the bill, privileges?

How about the declaring of voting blocks? Should such a thing be encouraged? Since some nations by themselves are too poor to really do anything, should they be relegated to a voting block, where all members of that voting block have to agree. How about the granting of more power to the voting blocks?

Do you believe the U.N. is working, with nations using their power and influences to stop the likes of WWII ?

Do you believe that a parliament of man is a good thing. Or do you believe that the nations that are paying the bills are being used by the nations eating at the table of nations for free?

I was wondering what others thought on this topic.

Comments: 1

stephen s. Apr 17, 2007, 4:20pm EDT

I think the U.N. can't have any real control over anything unless it is self funded. I'm particularly fond of the notion that the planet should be capitalized and the value of the planet should be administered by the U.N. by loaning it to the various governments of the world. If the notion that the natural resources of a place belong to the people there is acceptable, why then should we not place a value on the remaining resources and distribute ownership to all the people on the planet. For example: If the planet is agreed to be worth at least four to six million billion dollars, a country could borrow one million dollars for each adult human who lives there. The intrest only payments to the U.N. would be distributed directly to each individual as a dividend on their share of the planet and the U.N. would retain the funds it needs to operate. This would create a sustainable world social security. With payments of 1.3 percent each individual would at least live at poverty level, the U.N. would be self funded and people in general would have less to complain about. I think we can embrace and control capitalism/commerce or be destroyed by it.

reply to this comment

United Nations ponderings...

Comments: 1

Join the Conversation

You might also like

More by Albert W.