Teachers and Students > Debates

Be a World Government

<< < (2/3) > >>

Alpha:

--- Quote from: Ancestor on July 31, 2011, 06:34:59 pm ---I meant one of the weakest NGOs. Yeah.

--- End quote ---

It can be a governmental organization as well, provided you can argue your case. :)

Arthur Bon Zavi:

--- Quote from: ~Alpha on July 31, 2011, 06:36:25 pm ---It can be a governmental organization as well, provided you can argue your case. :)

--- End quote ---

Building your own government. Makes sense. ::)

$tyli$h Executive:

--- Quote from: ~Alpha on July 31, 2011, 06:31:47 pm ---It means pretend yourself to be at a position where you have to make a judicious decision for the whole world, all the citizens of all the world.
Put yourself in a hypothetical situation where you have to choose to cease the functioning of one international organization.

In short, which is the least efficient organization in your view and why?

--- End quote ---

I think the least efficient organisation is the United Nation itself. I would get rid of UN and all its entities first. Because firstly, its employees are paid ridiculously high salary for an organisation which should be concerned about aid and recruits should be mainly volunteers. This is, in simple terms, wastage of money and resources which reduces its efficiency greatly. Secondly, I don't believe in the theory of "Powerful nations helping the less fortunate ones". For one thing, powerful nations are bent upon exploiting the resources of the less developed ones (by means of "aid"). And the UN is just a platform to allow that (Africa?).

astarmathsandphysics:
We need the UN so that small nations have have their voice when powerful nations make decisions in their own interests.
What voice would Palestine have if it were not for their supporters in the UN?

Alpha:
The UN is full of flaws, I don't disagree, but there is no yet any other international organization that parallels it. It would be practically impossible to find alternatives for the UN's branches: UNDP, UNESCO, FAO, etc.

And concerning the power of small nations in the UN, the Security Council surely does not allow that to prevail if any policy goes against the interests of even one member of the Council. Russia did use that power extensively. Many people argue that Africa should be given a place in too, given that it is such a huge continent rigged with most of the world's problems of famine, poverty, malnutrition, corruption, miscreant states, etc. But yes, it cannot be denied that the Security Council is vital for the proper functioning of the UN (prerogative which the League of Nations did not provide, and can be traced to it's downfall).

With the superpowers' positions changing on the world map, it's inevitable that the Security Council will have to undergo changes too. Perhaps an alternative to the 'balance of power' theory? But like Borakk drew out, it is unlikely for superpowers to think of countries below them.

There may be other organisations that are more useless than the UN. What about the Olympic Games? Don't athletes and countries there waste more money than the UN does? The FIFA? The colossal salaries of sportsmen? The EU, which is already set on a downfall? The NAFTA? Those economic blocs preventing food prices from falling down just to protect their own farmers, eventually taking away the fishing rod of poorer nations? Any other organisation?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page