[In a previous message,
UN members bribed?
I quoted from an ABC News story of 29 Jan 2004 that
... prominent people around the world ... supported Saddam
Hussein's regime and were given oil contracts as a result.
which leads to the question of whether anyone was bribed to persuade
his country to oppose the US invasion of Iraq?
I made the point that
... institutions must not only be impervious to the bribery of
their members, they must also be seen as being impervious.
]
As a beginning, for a new international institution, I suggest
A three chamber organization:
* One chamber based on population, like the US
House of Representatives,
* A second chamber based on history, that is to say,
based on the principle of one (or two) votes per
nation-state, as in the current UN. This is similar to
the arrangement made among differently sized states in
the US at the time of the framing of the US
Constitution.
(Some contemporary countries are very small.
Consequently, the disproportion in power between large
ones and small nation-states is even greater than it
was in the 1780s between large and small US states.
To prevent this disproportion from wrecking the whole
proposal, it may be necessary that some small countries
federate with each other.)
* A third chamber based on the amount a nation-state pays
in taxes to the international organization. (If you
dislike the word `tax', refer to `payments made' or
`dues'.)
Payments made should be proportional to gross domestic
product. The institutional advantage of basing the
size of representation in the third chamber on payments
actually made is that countries that decide not to pay
lose power.
Arguments should be made over how to measure `gross
domestic product'.
Similarly, the member states should debate whether to
increase third chamber representation if a member pays
more than its due.
As far as I can see, a three chamber organization is the only way
simultaneously to overcome rich countries worry about poor but
populous countries, such as India, give populous countries power, and
gain support from the small. What alternatives do you suggest?
Further points:
Membership not necessarily that of the current UN.
A new organization need not encompass the whole planet, as
the UN does.
Unfortunately, this leaves open the possibility of major war
among large planetary coalitions, like the Cold War between
the US and nations on its side, and the USSR and nations on
its side. The war might be hot or cold.
On the other hand, if membership must include the whole
planet, then I fear the institution will be as much a success
and as much a failure as the present UN. On the good side, it
will be a continuous diplomatic conference, provide useful
technical bodies, and provide a method of settling some, not
very important, disputes internationally without war.
However, it will do little more. It will not be able to
settle important disputes among its member states peacefully.
It will be as much a failure as the United States would have
been had it included as member states both France and Great
Britain as well as the original 13 `states'.
No veto by any member.
If certain strong states possess a veto, they will be in a
position to make the organization work only for them or else
be paralyzed. Weaker states may be cajoled to join such an
institution, but will never take such an organization
seriously.
Clearly, the United States will not join such an organization
in which it cannot veto actions unless the US comes to believe
that the organization will not undertake actions damaging to
the US. (I suspect that the time period considered salient
for this issue by US decision makers will be two or three
generations, even if their salient time periods for other
decisions are only two or three months.)
What do you think?
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
