, , , , ,

I have written on this subject before but of course you are all to preoccupied to comment.

With the major powers refusing to give up their prerogatives and hogging most of the world’s resources, a new organisation of the global community must be invented soon.

The main challenge would be to define and defend mankind’s common resources.

The spread of conventional and nuclear weapons, and terrorism and genocide through such rudimentary means as the machete, are violence that goes beyond state borders.

We need to examine the reasons for this violence. Hunger, indecent development gaps, inequality in the face of natural disasters (particularly climatic ones), the major powers’ encouragement of arms sales and other trafficking, ideologies that breed racism and discrimination (neo-Nazi factions in European and Russian countries, “Ivoirité” in the Ivory Coast, discriminatory Zionism against Arabs in Israel, with implications for the failure of the peace process, radical Islam).

Human beings will always be confronted by their own violence.

Globalisation is leaving many more poor by the wayside, provoking new forms of violence and widespread terrorism. The UN has done nothing about the protection and equitable sharing of such vital resources as water, energy, knowledge and medication.

It’s a worthless gossip shop given that international law, which remains the framework for any reform, leaves sovereign states totally free in their commitments.

The complexity of a global society is totally ignored.

If we want to imagine another worldwide institutional system, we must examine the world we live in and ask ourselves what our goals should be.

Peacekeeping has become a belated, often useless, stopgap.

The UN manages inter-state relations, albeit feebly. The intense relations established directly between populations outside state control are developing into a power struggle to the detriment of the human rights they pretend to observe – ISIS. The peace dividend promised at the end of the cold war was an illusion.

Arms sales are soaring  because the major powers chose to militarise their economies. While the UN is still dominated by the victors of the second world war. It has not lived up to its mandate and will not be now or in the future be able to do so.

Its composition bears no relation to the declared intention of equality between members. The status of the permanent members and their veto remains intact as unjustified positions of power. This permanence of power remains unchallenged even though it is ephemeral by nature and the legitimacy of the five second world war victors has been eroded years ago.

President George Bush’s unilateral decision to invade Iraq removed a dictatorship only to plunge that country into chaos and violence, further confirming the helplessness of the UN.

Not mention current wars between states, civil violence, poverty, infectious diseases, environmental degradation, terrorism, organised crime, nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons.

There is no hope of the UN reforming itself any amendment must receive two-thirds of the vote in the General Assembly. To be enforced, it must then be ratified by two-thirds of the member states, including the five permanent members, and we all know what they will do.

Any proposal to democratise the council is a sham.

The history of democracy has been a constant struggle against the usurpation of power by the richest and strongest.

Where does this leave us?

The universal spread of extreme free-market values is calling for a universal political community, not to replace national communities but to complement them and cater for the complexity of a society that combines inter-state and inter-individual relations.

Technology is driving the world apart not together. Them and US.

The geopolitical shifts in Asia and in Asia’s relations with the rest of the world could lead to a redistribution of power and patterns of participation, with or without formal, structural reform.

The UN is already unable to adapt to global dynamics. Peacekeeping missions have developed exponentially, often leading to fiascos.

Is there is no one in power that can see that we need to look impartially at international trends that are challenge the world?

The need for democracy (by the elimination of all prerogatives that benefit only a few states), for law ( A world Court of Human Rights.The establishment of an international court of human rights, which would enforce the rights laid down in international treaties and hear individual appeals in special circumstances.) and justice (by the mandatory nature of international law).

These cannot be ignored for much longer. The world needs a new Organisation, not called Google.

Of course any New Organisation will need financing.

This can only be achieved by Independent funding. Any other form of funding is useless. Globalization and technology stop at no borders and capitalism continues to privatize the planet our collective destiny.

( See previous posts: A 0.05% aid commission on all High Frequency trading, on all Foreign Exchange transaction over $20,000, on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisition. This will create a perpetual fund of billions)

I for one am fed up of seeing people dying while our world leaders have another conference.