Essay:New World Order/Avenger

Okay, this somewhat of a work in progress...

The purpose of this essay is similar to that of essay on "needed constitutional amendments". Only that this is not for the order of government of the US, but rather to reform and / or replace the United Nations. Hence a "new world order" in some real sense of the term. (Though I do know how loaded this term is; the choice was deliberate)

Reform the UN

Many, even the UN itself has stated a need to reform the UN, which basically still reflects the world like it approximately looked ca. 1945, when the UN was founded. True, both "China" and "Russia" have been de facto replaced with different entities, but there is still little relation between anything happening now and the amount of power the UN gives countries (i.e. their leaders). Besides the nice coincidence that all five permanent members of the UN security council have nukes. (Though India, Pakistan and North Korea also have them and Israel either has them or has been running a very good bluff for very long)

Why it's difficult

As anybody who is versed in history (be it that of Poland, the Roman Republic or pretty much any place where a veto existed) knows, granting veto powers is easy, removing them is next to impossible. Hence the current veto powers are very unlikely to give up said powers. Now five veto powers is still a somewhat manageable amount. Yes, usually the US will protect "their guys" whereas Russia and China will protect "their guys" (the latter usually being much, much worse, at least in the post 1990 world), but in the rare cases that someone has gone beyond the Pale and/or is neither an ally of the US nor of Russia/China, some sort of resolution or even intervention can often be worked out. Now imagine having to deal with eight, ten or even more veto powers. Veto would be the only word you'd hear. And that's not even going into the idea of giving a seat to the European Union or stuff like that.

And of course if you want to reduce a veto to something only two countries together can do (which would be particularly harmful for the US in times Britain and France both oppose them, as can happen from time to time), this proposal will be vetoed by all of the current five veto powers, because: Why give up power?

So expanding the UN security council is DOA, and diminishing the power of the veto powers within the framework of the UN has been dead before anybody even bothered to dial 911.

Why it's still worthwhile

A lot of this can be read in more detail on pages of those advocating UN reform (which I frankly have given up on), but in essence it boils down to this:

1. The UN is blatantly unrepresentative
2. The Security Council does not include (emergent power X, my home country, Africa)
3. The UN is based on governments, not people

IMHO point three is the most important, but also the one that is most difficult to solve within the UN. In very few cases governments have delegated power to the people just "because". And this is especially true if there is the possibility to rail against "the UN" "the EU" "NAFTA" or some other transnational body

Nuke and replace the UN

In my opinion the UN is so broken that it is beyond repair. Yes some things related to the UN do good word (UNHCR among them), but overall the whole thing is so bloated (UNRWA, anybody?) so corrupt, so filled with dictators that the "free world" (meaning all stable democracies, no matter where or of what stride) gets outvoted almost every time. And the fact that Fiji gets as many votes as India means that vote buying from obscure Pacific islands is a worthwhile (and often practiced) tactic to get some support for (mostly symbolic) General Assembly votes.

So what to replace it with?

Clearly the biggest faults of the UN are also related to each other: It consists mostly of dictatorships, and even in the democratic countries, there is no real way for ordinary people to influence "their" UN vote. And even if by some magic the whole world were to turn democratic, small irrelevant places like the Vatican would get the same amount of votes as really big countries like Brazil or the US. Hence my Idea, behold:

The League of Democracies

The League of Democracies only admits democracies. Those have to have been democratic for a minimum amount of time (five years, ten years, the details will get worked out later) and there needs to be a vote of admission that deals with three things only:

1. Is this country a democracy?
2. Does it effectively control its claimed territory?
3. Is there any conflict over territory or something else with a member of the League of Democracies?

If all three questions can be answered in the right way, admission is approved by four fifths of the member delegates.

Wait? Delegates? Not "Countries"? Yes.

Who decides what?

Unlike the UN, the governments will be left out. There will be elections for delegates to the League of Democracies with each member state being allotted a number based on its population. Elections will be monitored by international observers approved by the League of Democracies and held in accordance with rules approved by the League of Democracies and set by the member states. All votes in the League of Democracies are by these Delegates only. They cannot be removed or replaced by other means than (special) elections or death. They cannot be punished in any country for any vote they make. They enjoy full diplomatic immunity for the duration of their term. No one Delegate nor no one country gets any more rights than any other.

What can the League of Democracies do?

The League of Democracies will be equipped with a budget equal to fifty billion dollars in 2014 money (adjusted to inflation) paid by the member states in accordance to their GDP. This budget will be used for general expenses as well as the upkeep of:

A standing army of 10 000 people, whose detailed equipment is to be worked out later and elsewhere. This army may not enter a member state without express permission in a referendum in said country. The force will be all volunteer and any citizen of earth is free to join.

All refugee camps. No money in refugee camps shall be spent more than thirty years after a conflict has ended. Member states are encouraged to give extra money for the upkeep and running of refugee camps. Private citizens may donate any amount of money to the agency charged with running refugee camps. Said agency is to be independent from any government intervention. Every member of the League of Democracies is to accept refugees in their territory and take all necessary and proper steps to integrate them into their society.

Other stuff I have now forgotten.

What is the army for?

The army is mostly for intervening in active genocides and peace-keeping after a cease-fire has been brokered. This army is not allowed to invade a country and topple a government, unless this is the only way to stop an ongoing genocide.