Fixing the UN with technology

Arguably the biggest problem with the UN is the veto power, which enables things like Russia blocking censure motions on Syria for using chemical weapons.

The veto power applies in the Security Council, which meets more or less permanently. On the other hand the UN's General Assembly, which is a much larger meeting, meets at most a few times each year, and is an extremely expensive undertaking.

However, there is no veto power in the General Assembly.

It seems to me, therefore, that one of the ways of overcoming the veto power in the Security Council would be for the General Assembly to permit some meetings - or some specific business, perhaps? - to be undertaken using video conferencing. After all, some court evidence is given over video links these days, although that involves a lot fewer locations.

The technology exists; people have the skills to solve the multiple locations issue; and even courts have set a precedent on this.

So . . . what if there was a mechanism to allow video conferencing for the General Assembly to consider specific issues such as censure motions on the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons?

I don't consider it should be used for the main General Assembly meetings, as there are many "corridor meetings" - including with NGOs - that are important, but it may be a way to overcome the tyranny of the veto.

Issues to be resolved would include:

• the experience, familiarity and preference of Ambassadors and diplomatic staff for face-to-face meetings, which they are trained for, rather than this newfangled videoconferencing; 
• the aforementioned technical challenges associated with more than 150 locations being involved; 
• the EXTREME likelihood of very advanced cyber attacks (on the other hand, there may be a reduced draw card for violent extremists); and
• issues such as trust around who else is "in the room" at the various location.

This also raises another issue: the problems of the factions in the General Assembly which have the potential to influence the outcome of votes there. This problem was probably most obvious to Westerners during the Cold War, but there are also regional, developing, island/Pacific nation, and other blocks. Given that, it is probably quite likely that there would be considerable opposition to making this change - or such stringent conditions that it might become a "toothless tiger".

Nevertheless, this could be a significant cost and time saving measure, up to a point, and may be worth considering from that point of view alone. (It would also reduce GHG emissions associated with air travel for attendees.)

So, next "problem" (it depends on one's perspective): factions.