From Newsgroup: alt.politics.org.un

C) Argumentation demonstrating how the model meets the assessment criteria

Will the measures and structures suggested above help to achieve the
desired goals?


1. Core Values

As global threats such as bioterrorism or climate change can hit
anybody, it will be of interest to the whole of mankind, that an
institution like the proposed GRIPRO on behalf of the Security Council
and/or the General Assembly is authorized to act against the will of
single states.

To combat crimes against humanity is a morally essential to call us human.

When the UN sends own troops (the permanent Task Force PTF), they can
make the choice on weapons to be used. Long distance weapons such as
bombs and rockets, which claim many victims among civilians, should not
be used. However, when member states send troops, they often prefer
these arms to avoid losses of own troops, which would decrease
acceptance among their citizens. In situations like the genocide in
Rwanda log distance weapons are useless while relatively light armed
ground forces could be effective.

A global language could make possible the participation of a greater
part of humankind on international debates. Moreover in a country which
is turning into a totalitarian dictatorship and where the government is blocking dissident news, people could get independent information from
abroad more easily.

The enhanced position of the General Assembly will make it less likely
that a few mighty states in the Security Council push through their
interests on cost of weak ones. The General Assembly, however, is not democratic either. So it seems to be desirable, to establish a
democratic parliament like the Federal Convention, as proposed in 1948
in: Preliminary draft of a world constitution (Global Challenges
Foundation 2017: Global governance models in history), or the United
Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA), which is propagated nowadays ((http://de.unpacampaign.org/). However, this is neither likely to be
accepted by a majority of states, nor does it really make sense, at the moment, I think. On the one hand it would be a huge effort to hold
elections all over the world and it could cause public unrest and
violence in some countries. On the other hand it is doubtful whether
elections will positive effects: Even in western democracies very
strange persons win elections sometimes. In dictatorships you can really
not expect that citizens can choose candidates who represent the people
and care for their interests. Even if international representatives
succeeded in holding free and secret elections (what is unlikely to
happen in such countries), due to lack of education and independent information a great part of the common people would probably vote for candidates coming from a doubtful so called 'elite' which is not a
selection of the best, but a selection of ruthless persons who have less morals than the average population. So it seems the members of
parliament would be better drawn by lot than elected; after all the
parliament would reach the average level of the population. However,
this approach is not practical at the moment, because most
representatives chosen by lot would not be able to do their job due to
lack of language skills. This could (and should) change, when a new
global language will have been established.

As all people should have same rights, all peoples shall get a chance to participate in global decision-making. The admission of peoples without
a state of their own to membership in the UN could be a step toward this
goal.


2. Decision-Making Capacity

Abolishing the right of veto in the Security Council and greater
authority to the General Assembly and different bodies of the UN and the proposed voting system can help to overcome the blockade of decisions
which paralyses the current system.

Weighting voting rights by a random factor can make buying or extorting/coercing of votes more difficult and so make decisions
possible which are essential to all mankind, however uncomfortable to
some rich and mighty ones.
(The random factor does not alter a voter's decision. However, it makes
the share fluctuate, by which each voter contributes to the total of
votes. So it will be difficult to predict, whom and how many voters
someone has to corrupt when he wants to manipulate the decision.)

The introduction of a global language could be helpful also in this
respect: If more people get permanent information from and about the UN
in a language they understand, the pressure from the population on their governments to support proper decisions in the UN would grow.


3. Effectiveness

The changes of the decision-making system proposed above can make it
easier and faster to decide on measures strict enough to be effective.
As long as an unwilling leader can be sure that an allied permanent
member of the Security Council will protect him from sanctions, he will
not cooperate. If there is no right to veto, this can change.

The greater authority of different bodies can help the UN to (re)act
faster. When an organ of the UN somewhere has recognized urgent need for action, it will be helpful to have the right to act, before so many
people have died, that the Security Council decides to take care of it.

Connecting assessed contributions to causing danger and harm can be
incentive to avoid detrimental behaviour.

The extended possibility to impose sanctions can help to implement
decisions and measures. The new bodies GRIPRO and PTF and the authority
to send observers and troops without permission from a state can help to tackle uprising crises and conflicts in an early stage, when they can be contained without major bloodshed; as well as the authority to arrest
and bring to justice criminals who have created those problems.

Fighting corruption is essential to prevent financial means from being
abused and miss their goals. If you tolerate corruption, even most
appropriate measures can cause more harm than benefit. For example: If
you pay corrupt people money for reforestation to store carbon, it can
happen that they grab small farmers' land or deforest a natural reserve
and then reforest the land with trees not indigenous and not adapted to environmental conditions at that site.

To establish the permanent Task Force PTF instead of sending troops from states has great advantages:

Rapid availability: If the UN has own troops, they can sent them fast.
Some conflicts and crises could be contained in an early stage with
relatively low effort and number of victims, if they are fought before
they have extended and intensified e.g. by weapons delivered from outside.

Professional Standard: If the UN has own troops, they can take care for
them to keep rules and standards. Whoever does not meet the requirements
can be fired. In contrary, when member states send troops, you cannot be
sure that the troops are really motivated and able to fight and have
moral integrity. Poor countries may want to get income by sending troops
to the UN which are not qualified to do their job. And troops sent by
rich countries which are well equipped, however inexperienced in
fighting might shrink from risks when the situation gets dangerous.
Troops employed and paid directly by the UN are (hopefully) motivated to
do their job to earn money. And whoever does not do his job properly can
be dismissed.

The introduction of a new artificial language as official language would
not only make the UN more efficient, it could also help to spread a
common language worldwide. That would help people from different origin
live together. This is of growing importance the more crises and
disasters get aid workers to go to foreign countries and refugees to
leave their country. The dealings of UN or NGO staff with the local
population would become easier as well as the integration of refugees in
their host countries.


4. Resources and Financing

Raising assessed contributions and paying supplements for detrimental behaviour as well as connecting voting rights to paying habits can
improve financial means and reduce dependence of (sometimes not
existing) goodwill of some payers.

To relieve distress caused by war or natural disaster effectively, you
need lots of money, and you need it in time. Whenever natural disaster
or war cause distress to many people at the same time, we must not wait
for lengthy donor conferences. Having established the proposed New
Global Fund, which can advance financial means, we can start acting in
an early stage. So we can save lives and resources. If UNHCR and UNICEF
had had sufficient financial means in time to care for refugees there in
Syria and Iraq and nearby, maybe the big exodus to Europe would not have happened, which requires much more resources now and moreover has given
fresh impetus to nationalists and racists who incite the people and
endanger our democratic system. And when terrorists or insane dictators
will have succeeded in producing a deadly and high contagious virus,
what seems to be possible (see: Global Challenges Annual Report 2017),
it will be essential to immediately provide enough resources to contain
the disease and to develop a vaccine.
Including private persons in the fund will help to raise not only funds,
but also publicity and knowledge. Connecting voting rights to paying contributions can improve paying habits and so ensure money flow return
to the fund.


5. Trust and Insight

The UN are said to be incapable to act and to be corrupt. Nevertheless,
in the eyes of many people the UN are are more trustworthy than states
or private companies which pursue their own interests. If we succeed in overcoming lack of capability and in fighting corruption, the UN can be
the organization which is trusted by people all over the world to solve
big problems.

If rules and decisions are written and published in a global language, a
great part of humankind will be able to read and understand them, what
would strengthen trust.

Gradually we should approach the aim to participate the common people in making decisions. Extended responsibility and authority of the ECOSOC,
which is in contact with many NGOs, the New Global Fund, which is open
to everyone, and the admission of petitions of citizens can be steps in
this direction.


6. Flexibility

Revisions or amendments of the UN Charter and the statues of the organs
will be easier to achieve by the abolishment of the right of veto and
the establishment of a voting system that makes extorting/coercing
difficult.


7. Protection against the Abuse of Power

To be under the jurisdiction of the Internal UN-Court and the
encouragement to report misconduct can deter people from abusing their position and power.

The principle of making decisions by several persons together whenever possible makes abuse of power unlikely, as a single honest person among
the decision-making body, who reports the abuse to the Court, can be
enough to stop the abuse.

Weighting voting rights by a random factor makes it difficult to
manipulate decisions by buying or extorting/coercing votes, as they
cannot predict how many and which ones among the decision makers they
must pull to their side.


8. Accountability

The establishment of an Internal UN-Court and the definition of an 'UN
Penal Code' and an 'UN Official Duty Code' as well as the obligation to
report severe wrongdoing make it possible not only to fire, but also to
bring to justice, if necessary, to penalize employees committing crime
or moral misconduct (see chapter b III,4). Sending troops permanent
employed by the UN (PTF, see: chapter B,III,5) and so being under the jurisdiction of the Internal UN-Court will decrease dependence on states
which send troops, however protect them from being brought to justice.
In the current system moral misdemeanour or even sexual abuse and murder
are likely not punished, as home countries do not want to persecute
crime committed by their citizens abroad due to lack of interest or even protect them from being brought to justice, due to strong position of
the military, corruption, or wrong national pride making them deny that
their citizens do such things.


D) References

Chayes, Sarah 2017: When Corruption is the Operating System <http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Chayes_Corruption_Final_updated.pdf>

Gareis, Sven B. & Johannes Varwick 2006 (4th ed.): Die Vereinten
Nationen - Aufgaben, Instrumente und Reformen

Global Challenges Foundation (ed.) 2017: Global governance models in
history <https://www.globalchallenges.org/en/the-prize/materials/global-governance-models-history-paper>

Global Challenges Foundation (ed.) 2017: Annual Report 2017: Global Catastrophic Risks 2017 <https://www.globalchallenges.org/en/our-work/annual-report>

Herz, D., C. Jetzlsperger & M. Schattenmann (ed.) 2002: Die Vereinten
Nationen - Entwicklung, Aktivit|nten, Perspektiven

Opitz, Peter. J. (ed.) 2002: Die Vereinten Nationen - Geschichte,
Struktur, Perspektiven

Sanjuan, Pedro A. 2006: Die UN-Gang

United Nations: Charter of the United Nations <http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/>

United Nations Department of Public Information 2004: Basic Facts About
the United Nations

unpacampaign: Kampagne f|+r ein Parlament bei der UNO <http://de.unpacampaign.org/>

UNRIC (Regionales Informationszentrum der Vereinten Nationen f|+r
Westeuropa):
Charta der Vereinten Nationen
<http://www.unric.org/de/charta>

Unser, G|+nther 1992 (5th ed.): Die UNO - Aufgaben und Strukturen der Vereinten Nationen

Weiss, Thomas G. 2009: What's Wrong with the United Nations and How to
Fix It

Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nationes> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council>

Wolf, Klaus D. 2010: Die UNO - Geschichte, Aufgaben, Perspektiven

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2