UN Big Buddy Program

[eskimo2]

Here’s my idea that would achieve much of what the US strives for, but it would be better:

All countries are labeled as being a “Have” or “Have Not” country and ranked by their economic abilities or needs.  Depending on their rank/economic potential, the Have countries are assigned one, two or three Have Not countries.  It is then the responsibility of each Have country to help out their assigned Have Not countries as much as possible both through government and private charities.  

The Benefits:
No more looking at 100 plus countries in dire need of aid and assuming that the problems are too big to comprehend or handle.  For example: you’re Dutch and your country has been assigned to help Angola and Namibia.  In high school and college foreign language classes of these countries were offered (along with the standard prominent world languages).  You also took a standard high school class on the histories, cultures and current plight of these nations.  Your neighbor hosted a foreign exchange student from Angola once; they don’t seem quite so foreign now.  Because so many people from Holland are working in Angola and Namibia both as volunteers and as paid professionals, Angola and Namibia are constantly in the news.  Dutch awareness of the needs of these people is very high.  It is much easier for students from Angola and Namibia to gain acceptance into Dutch universities than people from other foreign countries.  Private scholarships make attendance possible.  Your nation and its citizens would take great pride in the successes and improvements within these countries.  As a result, the gross economic aid from Holland is much higher than it was with the old UN system; Dutch people, however, actually see the effects of their aid to a great degree and are satisfied.  Aid to the countries of Angola and Namibia is less sporadic; the citizens receive relief and feel strong ties to one well off nation.  

With this system problems and solutions would not have to be debated by countries with varying agendas, languages, schedules, etc.  Problems could be dealt with at the same rate that an individual country deals with its own problems.

[Excel1]

Good idea eskimo, but the biggest problem with many of the "have not countries" is they are run by dictators or tyrannical governments who by their actions of denying basic human rights, creating famine through neglect and right up to butchering their own people, make the good intentions of giving aid to these countries akin to parking the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

Imo your buddy idea in a lot of cases would be effective, but for the tougher nuts a Stage 1 of harder measures is needed first, and the UN just isn't up too it.
In the hypothetical situation that the UN was actually effective and could make a quick and decisive difference in Darfur for example.. it couldn't even get into the place to do that. It beggars belief but the UN has to be invited in to Sudan by the villain- the Sudanese govt. I know the UN finally got the invite, but its way too late for a lot of Sudanese.

Even though at times it may be tinged with self interest I think the US govt's desire of wanting to democratise the undemocratic is the right way to go, even if it means using force at times. The UN should be in on it too, but it's going to need a major shake-up and a new charter first.