When people talk about the UN, it seems like they forget the UN is
an institution formed with the sole intent on perpetuating the ideal of
Imperialism. It is an institution created by and design for the power of
Empires to extend beyond its borders.
The UN is as good as is
merciful as a council that rules on the well being of slaves and
refugees, blind to the actual slavery and invasions.
Any
security council resolution is a fruit of a poisonous tree, as long as
it is a fixed member "league" that features not the people involved in
their resolution, and it bears a mechanism in which involved or
non-involved nations have veto power.
I am a believer that
Russia and China are now advocates for a better World, but even so, if
the UN is predicated in the belief that any given "power" is an advocate
for a better World, it becomes not a United Nations instrument, but the
Institution of their vision of what constitutes a better World.
Changing the USA as the "default authority on how the World should
behave" for another nation, or a group of nations does not change the
fact that a nation or a group nations is dictating how the rest of the
World should go on.
Again, I am a believer that Russia and
China are now advocates for a better World than that which we currently
have, but that does not guarantee that the World they want as a goal is a
better World over all. If you want to have an institution that claims
to be a Global Institution to frame what is a better World, it must be
able to instantly correct course when the World is in such a state that
any given country's idea being followed stop being the best course for
everyone and instead, becomes the best World to those nations deciding
it.
For that, I believe, the UN would require deep changes,
specially in how they deal with crisis and sensitive issues of
International Law.
Furthermore, it should be noted that there
are situations in which an institution like the UN should NOT be
involved as determining factor, even if the nations involved cannot
reach an agreement.
In that case, there should be something
like a security council, if it must, but defined at the time, by nations
which are suitable candidates to be involved.
I have a
personal experience with it. For the most you might think about the UN
with that much of a "high consideration", I have seen it doing the work
of Empires. I lived in Sri Lanka right after the civil war, and the
influence of the UN in it was not a good thing. And that is mostly
because the way it act was dictated by several countries that had a hand
in creating the situation that caused the civil war in the first place.
Now
imagine this for a moment. You take a place in which a corporation A
and a corporation B were fighting by a land that was the place in which
population A and population B lived, and the corporation B decided
corporation A should leave the place, because there is a more effective
way to deal with the strategic place and corporation B thinks it has the
power to take it. Corporation C has an interest in the place too.
Neither are, however, the titled owners or the original occupiers of the
land, which belongs to population B but invaded by population A
empowered by the power of corporation A. Then, all of a sudden,
perpetuating the power of corporations, it is decided by corporation A,
B, C, D and E that action will be taken to punish population A,
punishing population B in the process, because so they decided. And for
the record, participating, not being considered part of the problem in
any way, and not having to fix, repair or even "consider it", all these
corporations are meant to be "just judges" of how the population A and
population B should go in with their lives.
Further more, they
invade the land, and seize, interrogate, relocate, intimidate and judge
members of population A and population B, under the decisions of those
corporations.
All this sound ridiculously dystopian until you
change the corporations to nations and the group of them to United
Nations. Then, for some reason, it makes perfect sense to some. Not only
that, but also we have to understand this is a "good thing".
The
theory sound terrible, and the practice might be worse. The only good
thing about it is that this "monster" is in general outside these
policing activities, not because it cant, nor because it wouldn't, but
only because the decision maker people in the council that decides where
it does it are so unhinged that they keep blocking each other in their
decisions to deploy this "attack dog" against the interests of one
another.
But suppose nations in one side are no more. Suppose
one side successfully eliminate the nation that has a set, and that seat
is then occupied by another ally of the group in one side. Suppose I
dismantle the nations that have veto power in those decisions. Then a
single interest of a single section of the World are responsible to
decide what a force of significant power is deployed, and on who's
behalf.
We all should be more critical of how this institution
works before something of that nature happen, because a small country
in the middle of the Indian Ocean might not even figure in your "mind",
but that does not mean tomorrow, the same will be done just because one
things the World, their World, has the right to the oil, or to the rare
minerals, or simple to a given piece of land.
We need to
retire another league of nations, and make a type of institution that
has no power to execute a particular group's interests, claiming to
represent a "better World", which is a "better World according to A, B
and C" over the whole alphabet.