USA 2028

[Norgy]

So we can bet on "weirdify" being the word of the year in 2028.

I'm down for it.

[Barrister]

I think Trump likes bilateral treaties. The problem is that we need more unilateral ones for trade, for climate change, for unionising, for immigration, for foreign aid. In short, like we have discussed since 2003, we need the United Nations.

No matter what the issue or problem is, the answer is never the United Nations.

[mongers]

I think Trump likes bilateral treaties. The problem is that we need more unilateral ones for trade, for climate change, for unionising, for immigration, for foreign aid. In short, like we have discussed since 2003, we need the United Nations.

No matter what the issue or problem is, the answer is never the United Nations.

[Barrister]

I think Trump likes bilateral treaties. The problem is that we need more unilateral ones for trade, for climate change, for unionising, for immigration, for foreign aid. In short, like we have discussed since 2003, we need the United Nations.

No matter what the issue or problem is, the answer is never the United Nations.

You heard me.  It would be hard to think of a more dysfunctional organization in the world than the UN.

[Norgy]

I think Trump likes bilateral treaties. The problem is that we need more unilateral ones for trade, for climate change, for unionising, for immigration, for foreign aid. In short, like we have discussed since 2003, we need the United Nations.

No matter what the issue or problem is, the answer is never the United Nations.

As a Norwegian, I think I am bound by treaty to disagree. 

[Zanza]

Some of the United Nations specialized agencies are vital to global commerce and cooperation. What's your proposal to e.g. replace the ICAO?

[Sheilbh]

Some of the United Nations specialized agencies are vital to global commerce and cooperation. What's your proposal to e.g. replace the ICAO?

I can't answer for BBoy and I'm not quite so anti-UN, but the ICAO. It had predecessor institutions before the UN and standalone multi-lateral bodies to address specific needs can be (and are) regularly created. Tying it all into one general organisation - especially one that can be contentious and has an exceptionally broad range of interests.

Of course I think that sort of goes for the UN too - if there is a need something will be created (and there is no shortage to multi-lateral forums/groups). So I think without the UN we would be creating something very like the UN.

I'd add a friend of mine works for an international organisation that's been very successful in its area since the 50s and has had a strong reputation of actual delivery (and also getting on the ground in very difficult places/situations). They've been more or less subsumed into the UN over the last 10 years - part of the logic made sense in terms of competing for funds for similar goals with other UN institutions. But his perception is definitely that it is now significantly less effective, far more involved in internal UN bureaucratic turf wars and adopting a more risk averse/UN-ish approach to those high risk locations/situations (having said that they still have a presence in basically all of the highest risk category areas from a UN pov).

[DGuller]

When it comes to UN, I think it's a concept that even a very bad government is likely better than no government at all (obviously there are always exceptions).  UN is an attempt at having a world government, and while it's bad for many understandable and unavoidable reasons, it still provides for means for all the major governments to agree on no-brainers.

[Barrister]

Some of the United Nations specialized agencies are vital to global commerce and cooperation. What's your proposal to e.g. replace the ICAO?

There are lots of organizations that have been subsumed by the UN.

My proposal is not at all to replace the ICAO - but rather remove it from UN authority.  It does pre-date the UN after all.

I'm not against multilateralism, no sir.  Just anti-UN.

[Sheilbh]

When it comes to UN, I think it's a concept that even a very bad government is likely better than no government at all (obviously there are always exceptions).  UN is an attempt at having a world government, and while it's bad for many understandable and unavoidable reasons, it still provides for means for all the major governments to agree on no-brainers.

Yeah I think for that stuff the UN works.

I'm biased because of my friend's experience in international organisations but I am more dubious of the UN's "doing" agencies. I think the only one I've really heard positive things about from him and his friends is possibly the WFP (and again has a reputation for going to very difficult places).

[Zanza]

Some of the United Nations specialized agencies are vital to global commerce and cooperation. What's your proposal to e.g. replace the ICAO?

There are lots of organizations that have been subsumed by the UN.

My proposal is not at all to replace the ICAO - but rather remove it from UN authority.  It does pre-date the UN after all.

I'm not against multilateralism, no sir.  Just anti-UN.

I expected you to refer to the United Nations as they actually exist, not some undefined subset of it that you dislike. In that case I can of course not make an argument.

[Barrister]

Some of the United Nations specialized agencies are vital to global commerce and cooperation. What's your proposal to e.g. replace the ICAO?

There are lots of organizations that have been subsumed by the UN.

My proposal is not at all to replace the ICAO - but rather remove it from UN authority.  It does pre-date the UN after all.

I'm not against multilateralism, no sir.  Just anti-UN.

I expected you to refer to the United Nations as they actually exist, not some undefined subset of it that you dislike. In that case I can of course not make an argument.

I'm not the unabomber with a detailed manifesto of demands here.  I just quipped that the UN is never the answer to  a problem.

I didn't think that's such an outrageous position to take - at least clarifying that I'm not talking about the UN's specialized agencies.  I just don't see the benefit of having those organizations within the UN umbrella - they don't even all have common membership.

[Grey Fox]

I agree with BB. The modern UN is too subservient to the corrupt government of its membership.

[Neil]

I think Trump likes bilateral treaties. The problem is that we need more unilateral ones for trade, for climate change, for unionising, for immigration, for foreign aid. In short, like we have discussed since 2003, we need the United Nations.

No matter what the issue or problem is, the answer is never the United Nations.

Disagree.  I think the UN has proven to be useful for creating buy-in for various global standards.  Things like the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, The World Intellectual Property Organization, the World Health Organization.  All of these are useful bodies. 

Sure, you're not going to get much value out of trying to use the UN as some sort of global government, or to resolve intractable political disputes, but as a place to create broad technical frameworks for international use, it's as good a place as any. 

[crazy canuck]

"Human sacrifice. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!"