The United Nations must change to survive

After all, the world has changed since the U.N. inception after WWII. And if those enjoying the present U.N. don’t like change, then they probably will really dislike being irrelevant in the future.

The discussion is far beyond what is fair and decent. And it is far beyond the classical debate between realists and idealists. It is as simple as the “nations” part of its organizational title. Since the U.N.’s inception many “nations” have devolved into city-states with the claim of national sovereignty, to the point that some tribes and families control the capital cities of these “former” nations (though nations still in name and on maps), and therefore their vote at the U.N. And many other small countries have come into being, including joining the U.N. But that some of these “countries” have populations around 100,000 to 200,000 and have an equal vote with much larger countries like those on the Security Council seems patently wrong and unfair.

The main value of the U.N. to humans is that it is one place we can meet, talk, argue, debate, and sometimes decide. But when city-states and tribes and families can use their local mafia-like powers to gain a place at the U.N. table, and affect the future of the human world, then things have gone amuck, and change is in the air and called for.

It is easy to complain, and much more difficult to change an organization as large as the U.N. That is both obvious, and predictable. And the present charter makes change most difficult to achieve. And only the naïve can expect city-states and tribes and families and small countries to give up with they have at the U.N. today. So two courses of action seem a good place to start. One is the “within” course of action led by the Secretary General, who is supposed to respond and work for the Security Council. This course requires hardball leadership, and budget fights, and is a good course of action because it can lead to results that are better for we world humans, and can be observed by we world humans. The second course is more likely and revolutionary in approach, though banal in its application. Call it the League of Nations approach, call it irrelevance, call it pulling the budget plug, or just call it starting over.

The idea of nation-states needs to be reinforced by all means, diplomatic, economic, and simple government. While the nation-state idea is considered western, it also recognizes that by coincidence, those of us living in the same region have enough in common to work together for our common good (mostly economic), and suppress what divides us. The always-present power of city-states, tribes, and families needs to be recognized as human, and not privy to the recognition afforded to nation-states. It may take a century of time to get closer to the nation-state idea than we are at today. Classically, the world since WWII has evolved differently than what existed before WWII. And we are not bound by those that brought us WWII, and the subsequent U.N. that we have today.

A forum for nations meeting and debating and deciding is important to our World’s future. The present U.N. is not such a best and only choice forum. Change must come, one way or the other.