TED Conversations

Lindsay Newland Bowker

TEDCRED 50+

This conversation is closed.

What Are Your Views On The Now Active UN Small Arms Initiative : Legitimate Component For World Governance? How Should It Be Enforced?.

We have had and are continuing many discussions here at TED Conversations on global governance and its feasibility. Many have pointed to the UN as the logical place to house this. Well right now, in fact starting May 9th the UN is taking up the issue of global small arms control. http://www.poa-iss.org/MGE/

We have never agreed, or even much discussed here at TED Conversations the parameters of what should be governed. Many though have pointed to the UN as the place for such global governance. Here is an issue under active consideration for global governance through the UN. Is this a legitiamte endeavor for the U.N. ? What are your views on the UN's global small arms control.initiative?

It will greatly enrich this conversation if we all read and start with the actual issues now before the UN ( see link above) .

Many countries are very intimidated by this move. There are slogans with Hillary Clintons picture up them at many foreign websites saying"Vote No on Small Arms" Would make for a lively and relevant conversation to bring the views expressed in other countries to this conversation as welll...as the UN will have to do in its deliberations.

Share:
  • May 4 2011: First, I need to address that the UN is not the logical place to do anything. The UN is so corrupt it is comical. The UNHRC is controlled by a bloc of Islamic and African states, backed by China, Cuba and Russia, who protect each other from criticism. Also, there is a UN resolution that forbids us to kill heads of state. If we got rid of that we could more easily solve the problem in Lybia and Uganda instead of bombing the crap out of them (Lybia) or being quite passive when we talk to people who use children as the backbone of their army (Uganda). Where was the U.N. in Darfur, Uganda, Sudan, Congo, Ivory Coast, Rwanda, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, China, Afghanistan, Columbia, Cuba, North Korea, Haiti, Vietnam, and Venezuela where they should of been there protecting the lives of people with their pansy ass "peace keeping" force. Even though they didn't commit the genocide in Rwanda themselves they are just as guilty because they were there yet they didn't do anything. It just doesn't work.

    To the original topic, I don't think it's very practical to have reduced arms unless everyone is in on it. That's the problem, not everyone is in on it. Is North Korea and Pakistan planning on destroying their nuclear weapons anytime soon? Unfortunately we need to be able to defend ourselves. We can't really do that if we can't crush our opponents. The reason we are the most powerful nation in the world is not because of the size of our army but the technological achievements. We need to be prepared to defend ourselves.
    • thumb
      May 4 2011: Andrew..thnaks so much..sounds like you know a lot about the U.N so. Your voice and these points about the U.N. would have been very valuable in our several recent and ongoing conversations about global government and global democarcy.http://www.ted.com/conversations/2364/one_worldwide_government.html . Not too late to join in and would definitely enrich that conversation.This particular proposoal is actually before the United Nations and it is not nuclear weapons..it s small arms control. ( Thellink above takes you to the actual proposal) Gun control is not one of my usual issues but since the UN had come up so often as the seat of any global governmenI and since we had never really worked through the part about "We the citizens of the world do hereby declare"--the actual scope of things which supercede soverignty, I thought this actual proposal before the U.N. might help us to get more focused on our global goivernment discussion. By the way, welcome to TED conversations and again thnaks so checking in in this.
    • thumb
      May 5 2011: "We the citizens of the world do hereby declare"... It says it all.
      • thumb
        May 5 2011: hi tofig..how does the declaration of independence begin..? that was my reference..anyway what I am pointing to is that in our many discussions on wolrd government we have never talked aboout what is subject to wolrd governance over and above the soverign rights of nations. This is just a silly device to open that conversation by syaing is control of small arms one of those things.? Wpuldn't be on th etop of my list but here it is..the UN is considering that..small arms control..is that on your list of things globally that supercede sovereignty?

        (nice to see you here by the way..welcome)
        • thumb
          May 5 2011: Hello, I think small arms control is important but it wouldn't be on the top of my list toward the world government.
          Democracy has not reached all part of the world yet, and moreover there are people in our planet who don't even understand it or think it will take their sovereignty away.
          And I think that's exactly where we should start.
  • thumb
    May 5 2011: We need to localise government. Knitting a bigger blanket won't keep everyone warm..
    • thumb
      May 5 2011: Hi Scott, glad to see you here and yes that's it...Buckie Fuller's slogan was Think Globally. Act Locally..mine too, actually. But is there a beyond that? "a ..yes but what about.?" where we as a global community ( and we are inescapably that now) need to notice that there already is a bigger blanket and it isn't keeping us warm here at home? . The big blip in world financial markets hit our little lobstermen right here on my tiny island with a scary immediacy..the plutonomy lost its appetite for lobsters. The global oil market makes it so costly to run a fishing boat, my guys here in their bagged old boats can't afford to fish.So if we are de facto a global community do we leave the global governance part to trade agreements, arms negotiations, OPEC, etc. Doesn't that completely disenfranchise all local communities..Where is the voice that keeps ordinary people in ordinary communties in the global picture. ( did you check in to the conversation we are having on plutonomy)The purpose of this converstaion is really bring that to the fore. To really acknowledge the de facto global government alredady in place and to explore that responsibly.to me it is about your point exactly..keeping everyone warm.(obviously small arms is not on the list of what keeps more people warm and again..it is just a foil for getting eactly at that discussion. I had tried to start a conversation on exactly what we need to guarantee globally to keep people safe warm and included ..even fisherman here in Maine. but that didn't fly r)In this setting or anywhere we can find. the conversation you are pointing to is excatly the conversation I think we need to have.Thanks again scott
  • thumb
    May 4 2011: Could you name a democratic goverment that is EFFECTIVLY ran? so should we leave it up to one to run the world?
    • thumb
      May 4 2011: Hi Tim..this is about debate on an actual proposal before the UN. Is small arms control a legitimate global mandate? a mandate that should supercede soverignty? ( The uN proposal is a mber nation vote)