Comments on: United Nations 2.0

By: Tel

Tel — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 08:36:17 +0000

“he who cautions every step covers little ground.”

… and he who steps on a landmine covers much ground

Seriously though, the United Nations was designed for the explicit purpose of bureaucratic inertia. We don’t want a new and interesting set of human rights popping up as the latest twitter fad sweeps through, we want one simple and constant set of human rights.

By: Anthony D. Williams

Anthony D. Williams — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:08:14 +0000

Thanks Tony for the suggestion. You’re right it is a much more credible proposal and more along the lines of what I was looking for.

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:23:15 +0000

I would strongly encourage you to check out a more professional proposal for a world parliament than the one to which you link above. RyansWorld seems a bit disconnected from the real policy world. I would suggest you investigate the current Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly, which has recently secured the endorsement of over 600 current or former Members of Parliament. In many ways, this initially advisory body would serve the role you suggest, eventually establishing itself as a genuine global parliament much as its European counterpart did.

By: John Kavanagh

John Kavanagh — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:11:38 +0000

Like many beauractic entity, the UN lacks merit-based hiring, with positions currently allocated geographically. Furthermore, many players at the UN leverage diplomatic immunity to avoid punishment for criminal behavior.

By: Stuart Berman

Stuart Berman — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:24:31 +0000

Too bad you are taking an approach that views technology as the solution to a problem that is not technological in nature.

The UN is not a victim of neocon or negative press rather it is the nature of what the organization is. Consider that this organization forbids only Israel from sitting on the Security Council or had determined that Zionism was racism.

In essence the value of the UN is for various nations to have a forum to meet rather than go to war. Its purpose is not to determine how to solve all problems.

For a better Wikinomics approach look at the proposals by Thomas PM Barnett (author of The Pentagon’s New Map, etc) who asserts that it makes more sense for policy decisions to come from a body that has at its best interest global stability such as the G20. In other words the countries that contribute the most to the global ecomomy get the biggest say.