I would bet my life savings that neither India nor Japan want this to occur. India doesnít need to irritate the Pakistanis and Japan prefers that that the Red Chinese save face. No, this sort of cat fight will be avoided. My guess is that it will take around ten years before the unofficial reality is officially sanctioned. It will be like the old bossí son tacitly taking over the reigns, but allowing the fatherís name to remain on the office door. Everything becomes official only after the elderly gentleman dies or decides to “retire.”

I agree with you. I don’t believe it is the least bit possible for the UN or anything similar to have any real and permanent influence on “world peace”. Whatever purpose it serves, even if it weren’t corrupt and more harmful than beneficial at the moment, will be marginal at best. The world is not ready, and may never be ready, for a World Government. Klatu was cool but full o’, ummm…, stuff.

But I do think a concept such as the UN could serve marginally beneficial purposes. A fire house needs to be taken to the pig stye to clean it out though.

I understand and, to an extent, agree with Dave also but I would rather see the thing brought more closely in line with current reality. Dotting every “i” and crossing every “t” isn’t necessary but tossing France out on its ear and gaining some “goodwill” from Japan and/or India seem to me to be worth the catfight. Heck, just the catfight about reform would be worthwhile since it would keep the kleptocrats busy scurrying around to save their necks rather than trying to cut our throats.

And since I believe China is the next big challenge we face I wouldn’t mind seeing whatever small value that might be had by bringing the two next biggest players in that part of the world into the picture.

But I’m not married to any of it. Alcatraz and a quarterly supply raft works for me if I can’t have precisely what I suggest.

These are the type of awkward question which guarantee the survival of the United Nations. The United States and its allies prefer to allow such questions to remain officially unresolved. Try to imagine the poor guy forced to pick the prettiest girl among the three who are standing in front of him. The poor slob is in a no win situation. No, we are better off, for the time being, not to cross all of the ìtîs and dot all of the ìiîs. Tacit understandings often work out better than explicit formulations.

In my opinion, reform is impossible without significant levels of transparency and accountability. The UN will never be held accountable because it won’t let itself be. We can cut off funding and kick them out of the US but look no further than AL-Kofi’s recent decisions as evidence that the UN does not believe it SHOULD be accountable to any one country.

Someone above in another recent thread mentioned that UN is useful as a “forum” for diplomatic discussions and venting. And its death would set the Moonbats to wailing and gnashing of teeth that would reach a level that would prevent the sane among us from getting any sleep. That’s fine – let the sick old beast live since it can’t move fast enough and has no teeth and, therefore, it presents no real threat anymore.

I have no idea whether “reform” is possible and I suspect that even if reform is possible the benefits would be relatively mild.

As an American the reform I’d like to see is for the US to reduce funding to the same levels as other major nations. Stop footing half the bill. I’d also like to see the UN HQ moved out of the US. Let some other nation deal with the thugs that corrupt organization attracts.

As a “citizen of the world” (if I might be allowed to wear a costume for a moment), I’d like to see changes in the composition of the Security Council. It just doesn’t make sense for today’s world let alone the future. The tensions and potential for common cause are all wrong anymore. What, for example, has France really got to do with anything? And how does the EU fit – why should a United States of Europe have two seats (England and France) when the United States of America gets only one? And Japan probably matches the power and importance of England and France combined so why doesn’t Japan have a seat? And if China then why not India? Between the two they represent almost 1/3 of the world’s population and probably 2/3 of the nasty little problems “globalization” and economic growth represent.

Why leave France on the SC to play the US and China off against one another? Why not bring India and Japan, who have a direct interest in what China does, into that tension? It strikes me as near lunacy to have a thing like the UNSC and leave Asia represented there only by China and Old Europe holding two seats. Whassupwitdat?

None.

Organizations as corrupt as the UN, or as inbred and biased as CBS, will not change to any significant degree with the replacement of the puppet at the top. All that will change is the outward appearance.

Not to be insensitive, but you can put a wig and a tan on a cancer patient, but the cancer is still there.

That is unofficially already taking place. Alas, I am compelled to bore you to death and repeat once again: President Bush was reelected. The United Nations as a viable organization is therefore finished. We will now work around this moribund entity. The only reason that its death is not officially announced is the awkwardness, for instance, of bluntly informing the French that India is militarily more important to us than they are. Our current relationship with the UN is similar to the married couple who live separate lives but pretend otherwise when making public appearances.

I get the distinct impression that many people have not yet come to terms with the importance of John Kerryís defeat. This was not just another election. The world has been changed forever.