Thursday, September 24, 2009

• Item by Malcolm T. Hedges

Don’t get me wrong, it is a huge useless bureaucracy that thrives thanks to American taxpayer dollars syphoned off by our amazingly stupid Congress.

Essentially the UN is a defacto advertising vehicle for tyrants and petty political hacks.  It does some minor good around the world which is far overshadowed by the damage and blunders it propagates.

The “League Of Nations” joke was favored by President Woodrow Wilson but the US somehow actually never signed onto the scheme.  Eventually is did a crash and burn…

Out of the ashes emerged the United Nations which is a cruel oxymoron.  The is no “unity” in the United Nations.

The very “structure” of the UN is self-defeating and handcuffs it from valid actions.

The “Security Council” is so fragmented that seldom can it agree on much of anything.  The UN itself (thankfully) still has no military forces and can’t force anybody to do anything.

For all practical purposes the UN is a “political wet dream” perpetuated by arrogant elitist New World Order advocates.  Yet the UN can’t manage to run itself let alone any serious operation.

There is no concept of “democracy” or representative structure in the UN, it is a generally an ideological mishmash of “member states” that respect nothing but their particular interests.

It is conceivable that some form of “World Association Of Nations”(WAON) could be created that would be of minimal value, it would have to be totally different than the UN model.

Something resembling a Constitutional Republic (similar to the USA model) would be needed with members being somehow “elected” by the individual member “states”(that individual could not be the political leader), it would have an abbreviated Commons based on population of the member state (maximum members 1000), an Upper House with two representatives from each member state and an associated Court having only advisory powers.

The leader of the WAON would be selected for a 1.5 year term with repetition prohibited for the same individual and the same country denied for 5 years.  That individual would “elected” by 67% plurality of the votes from the both the Commons and Upper House.

All WAON “resolutions” would require a 55% plurality in both in Commons and Upper House.  The setting leader (if that resolution did not address its state) could flatly veto the resolution without recourse or return it for a “re-vote”.  That way the leader couldn’t block actions against its home state).

Yes, member state leaders could gather every year and blather for a maximum of 30 minutes with microphone cutoff mandatory.

This draft model for WAON could be a start for discussion, it may have issues,  the current UN is a “Charlie Foxtrot” operation.

Malcolm T. Hedges

Permalink