What is an alternative to the United Nations?

Question

I've heard much discussion about the UN (both pro & con) on Yahoo! Answers. Is there a need to have a place where all the world governments can come together to "speak" with each other? If so, and you believe the present UN isn't that place, what do you suggest would be better?

Answer 1

The UN has many problems, but tearing it down and putting up another organization isn't the answer. Any other organization would have the same problems as the UN, countries that consider themselves outside of its authority. People need to see all of the good the UN has brought to the world, anti-retroviral medication to people with AIDS, eradication of malaria and polio, and clean drinking water to so many parts of the world. The UN wasn't formed to be an end-all be all to be sovereign over the whole world, it was formed as a forum for nations to solve problems diplomatically.

Answer 2

Your going to might want to be extra certain. The "United countries" refers to a communicate board, made from a a loose crew of projects, with each performing quite independently: -- the safe practices Council (that is the purely body that would want to bypass binding resolutions) and has purely 5 everlasting contributors, anybody of that can veto *any* thought, no be counted how a lot help -- the final assembly, that is only a communicate communicate board, without ability in any respect -- the Secretariat, it is totally only a collection of spokespersons (the UN Secretary regular, etc.), although they each so often step right into a negotiation function. -- the numerous self sustaining UN businesses (UNICEF, UNIFEM, UNDP, WHO, WFP, etc.) which each and each have many successes between them, yet do not in many situations paintings jointly. To eliminate those businesses might want to be a wide disaster. there is extra, yet those are the numerous ones. you likely mean the safe practices Council, seeing that that is the crew maximum persons see because the most ineffective (maximum persons do no longer opt for the final assembly to have any ability, through the indisputable fact that would want to be too close to to a "international authorities). the safe practices Council might want to actual get replaced or thoroughly remodeled. There should be extra everlasting contributors, and there should be different criteria for choosing those contributors (today, there is not any criteria -- there aren't any thoughts to regulate or upload to the everlasting contributors). also, IMO, Peace Keepers must be spoke of with the aid of the fellow international places they characterize, quite than lower than a "UN Banner" -- they conceal in the back of that once they misbehave, and issues might want to be very different if, instead, they were spoke of as "protection rigidity forces from <>."

Answer 3

We should form a United Democracies organization that only democratic societies can join. This would exclude most of the trouble areas of the UN system. Then the democracies could present a united front to the world. Otherwise just abolish the UN altogether.

Answer 4

We could tear down the building and add some valuable parking spaces to N.Y.C. The U.N. is pretty ineffective and has become a mouthpiece for 3rd world tyrants. Maybe we'd be better off without it.

Answer 5

The UN does its job, its certain countries who do not heed to the advice of it that get themselves in trouble. IE...The US and Iraq

Answer 6

Not have a UN. It's as useless as udders on a bull.

Answer 7

We could all unite under the EU and rotate the presidency of it.

Answer 8

We really have no use for the UN.
Here in America anyway. lol.