skip to Main Content
Stained Glass Dove Of Peace With Olive Branch

Fixing The


UN 2.0

Cobalt Blue Glass Angels Praying

Aren’t You Tired of Pretending We Can Beat Hate (Terrorism) With Hate (War)?

Let’s Spend Far Less & Be Far More Safe

Prevent War & Terrorism With Human Rights & Justice

 Only Human Rights, Diplomats, & Developmental Experts Can End Our Military Problems

How To

Create Terrorists

Ignore The Poor Who Need Clean Water

Ignore The Hungry & Starving Poor

Ignore The Sick Poor

Support Dictators Who Jail & Torture Their Opposition

Flood Conflict Regions With Military Weapons

Waste Trillions Of Dollars On War Instead Of Cheaply Helping Those In Need

Stop Desperate Refugees Fleeing Violence & Keep Them In Poor Countries

Ignore The Children Of Refugees So They Grow Up Without Education

 Fighting Poverty & Injustice Can Bring Peace & Prosperity


Worldwide, wars and conflicts cost about $14.3 trillion each year, 100 times more than rich countries spend helping poor countries develop. Wars disable and kill people, pollute the environment, and damage systems for health care, food, water, and sanitation.

Isn’t it time to stop our incredibly wasteful, destructive wars, stop flooding our world with military weapons, and turn our beautiful, blue-green fragile world into a prosperous, peaceful paradise?

Extreme poverty and injustice are important causes of war and terrorism. People fight over access to clean water. Suffering and exposure to criminal networks increases the likelihood of support for extremism and terror.

The only effective way to end these problems and begin an era of worldwide cooperation is justice: a strong focus on human rights, especially clean water, food, universal health care, and education.

Prevention is far, far cheaper than trying to end conflicts and wars after they arise. The UN has been far too focused on military intervention when bad situations explode, rather than on the simple human needs that, when ignored, lead to hopelessness, conflict, and violence.

Rich Western governments spend plenty of money subsidizing cows but won’t pay to feed the 815 million people in the world that are chronically hungry, malnourished, or starving.

For example, Japan spends $7 per day per cow, while the US and Europe spend $2.60 per cow per day. Large dairy herds often have central heat in winter, sprinkler systems to cool the cows multiple times each day in the summer, and computer chips on each cow to coordinate with feeding machines.

Meanwhile, 50,000 people starve to death every day, 21,000 children die of extreme poverty every day, and 767 million people live on less than $1.90 a day. And many of the 1.5 billion poor farmers in the developing world live with no electricity and very little or no running water or sanitation.

This is the kind of injustice that fuels war and terrorism. Also, developing and poor countries lose 24 times as much money to rich countries as they receive in aid. Since 1980, $16.3 trillion has flowed from poor countries to rich countries.

Since 1980, developing countries have paid over $4.2 trillion in interest payments on debts alone, far more than the aid they’ve received.

According to the UN, each year, developing countries lose $1.26 trillion to corruption, bribery, theft, and tax evasion each year. Developing countries lose the most money from criminal money laundering and large companies faking invoices and shifting money into tax havens.

Illegal money flows keep the poorest people in the world starving. Clamping down on illegal money flows and using this money to help the neediest people would bring peace and prosperity to the whole world.

We already have enough food to end hunger worldwide. We know how to provide basic healthcare worldwide, using trained paraprofessionals to lower costs. We have experts in economic development who know how to grow national economies with basic services, education, and jobs.

Economic development works and builds peace. The best example of this the Marshall Plan of the United States after World War II. The US spent $13 billion helping 16 countries in Europe rebuild and it paid off in peace and prosperity in those countries ever since. The US also helped Japan rebuild, with the same good results.

We already have the expertise, laws, treaties, & courts to end war crimes. We just have to make offenders face consequences for their war crimes.

We have experts who know how to help failed nations create peace agreements, transition governments with power sharing and national dialogue, and then new constitutions and democratic elections.

Yet we don’t fund the UN enough to successfully promote human rights, economic development, or help set up local governments in failed states. The US, Russia, and other countries have regularly fallen hundreds of millions of dollars behind in their promises to support the UN!

Developing countries often build airports, universities, and hospitals for big cities but fail to build roads, primary schools, and village health centers for the poor. They often support the upper and middle classes with services but neglect basic education and health care for the vast majority of their poor citizens.

We don’t fund UN peace missions enough to reform governments and police systems or to develop economies. We need to reintegrate former soldiers and rebel fighters with education and skills training.

We hurry through the phases of building governments for failed nations, using powerful, competing local groups, instead of taking our time with outreach and developing input from broad local grassroots religious leaders, women, minorities, youth, private businesses, labor organizations, and civil societies.

Because of this hurried approach, new elections often result in powerful elites dominating the process, the suppression of votes, or renewed violence.

We should rebuild failed nations more carefully, cultivating leaders from citizens already working to improve local conditions, like doctors, teachers, social workers, and those providing disaster and medical aid.

Sometimes it may be far easier to give ethnic or religious groups in conflict separate lands, creating new smaller nations, rather than to force them to forget past wrongs and share power in one larger nation.

Far too much foreign aid to poor nations operates as corporate welfare, outlawing buying the needed food or materials locally. Instead, this aid requires buying them from Western companies for donation.

Whether from governments or charitable organizations, free aid often backfires. When Christian aid groups bought the freedom of slaves in Sudan, slavers took more slaves to get the money. We must stop governments using food aid in famines to feed the armies committing the atrocities.

Aid often just runs local producers out of business. Food aid disrupts local agriculture markets by bankrupting locals selling the foods. In the US, Eisenhower’s “Food For Peace” program dumping our wheat farm surpluses bankrupted thousands of Indian farmers. George Dunlop, Chief of Staff of the Senate Agriculture Committee wondered if this ultimately starved millions of people.

People in Africa lost their cotton and textile markets when Westerners started flooding Africa with donated clothing in the 1970s and 1980s.

Too much Western aid goes to extravagant airports, universities and big city hospitals and not enough to roads, schools, and village health centers. We tend to rebuild schools or clinics but not pay salaries to teachers or health workers.

Often, Western aid officials ride in air-conditioned SUVs and work and live in luxury writing reports while not enough money goes to developing local businesses.

We must focus our aid on true development: on basic education, skills training, connecting local people to markets, and land reform. Conflicts over land often lead to wars and refugee crises, such as those in Columbia, Myanmar, Rwanda, Sudan, and Syria.

Most people in poverty depend on land for their survival yet, sadly, only 10% of land in rural Africa and 30% globally is legally documented. Perhaps only 20 to 30% of African city dwellers and 20% of indigenous peoples have rights to the lands they live on.

Experts now understand giving land rights to small farmers and people living in slums reduces poverty and speeds development, greatly increasing productivity on farms and making it possible for people to get loans to grow businesses.

Establishing land rights to small farmers in Japan and South Korea after World War II helped those countries grow to become the economic powerhouses they are today.

The UN points out many countries with economic miracles, such as Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Malaysia had their turning points in real, fair land reform.

Over half the world’s countries, by law or by custom, don’t let women own, inherit, or manage land. Giving women and indigenous peoples the right to the lands they now occupy fights homelessness and poverty.

Without land rights, over 1 billion people in many corrupt countries can and do lose their lands to foreign investors. In fact, 93% of lands sold to foreign investors for extractive activities like oil, gas, mining, dredging, or quarrying already have people living there.

The Fatal Flaw In The United Nations

The UN Security Council is dominated by the completely undemocratic veto power of the 5 permanent members (5P) of the Security Council: the US, Russia, China, England, & France.

This arrangement, a relic left over from the great powers after World War II, no longer reflects global political realities. The veto power of the 5P prevents the UN from solving problems.

The veto sometimes means the UN fails to act on war crimes and crimes against humanity. It makes the UN unfair and undermines the legitimacy of its authority. Nations with large economies like Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil and nations contributing money and troops want more say.

The 5P blocked action in the Middle East or on Southern Africa 237 times. Because of their veto power, the UN took no action when Russia invaded Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Georgia, and Ukraine and the US waged war in Vietnam.

Russia and China regularly veto resolutions against Iran and against Bashar al-Assad’s violence and use of chemical weapons in Syria. They blocked resolutions about Bosnia’s massacre and condemning political repression in Myanmar. Russia vetoed resolutions against its annexation of Crimea and against its shooting down of Korean air lines flight 007.

The US often uses its veto to prevent resolutions demanding a halt to Israel’s illegal settlements in Palestinian territory and criticizing Israel’s human rights violations (apartheid) against Palestinians. This just keeps tensions inflamed in the Middle East.

England and the US often vetoed resolutions about apartheid in South Africa before their racist government fell. The US also blocked resolutions against its invasions of Grenada and Panama and its illegal support of Contra rebels in Nicaragua.

Other nations rightfully complain that the P5 nations use double standards to act in their own interests, enforcing resolutions very inconsistently or even ignoring or violating international law.

For example, why did the UN intervene in Haiti but not in Rwanda, Angola, or Nigeria? Some believe it was simply because the US didn’t want a flood of Haitian refugees. The US and other Western governments also blocked action when Indonesia invaded East Timor and massacred civilians.

Even the threat of a veto often weakens or ends responses. The dominant 5P nations often force the withdrawal of a resolution or force changes in resolutions by threatening a veto, which is called the “pocket veto.”

Many have proposed ending the veto on matters of genocide, limiting its use to vital national security issues or international aggression, requiring two or more states to agree on a veto, or completely abolishing it.

The P5 often has informal meetings in total secrecy, with no minutes or reports.  Powerful P5 states often use threats like cutting aid or blocking loans or trade deals as blackmail to force smaller states to back their desired proposals.

P5 nations may make decisions greatly affecting other countries, perhaps with sanctions or great floods of refugees, with no input from them at all. This is very unjust.

Nations become angry when their own peacekeeping forces must deploy based on Security Council decisions without any consultation or input from them. In fact, this puts the soldiers of smaller nations at risk even though the US and Russia provide no troops at all to the UN.

But changing the rules is very difficult because in order to make a change, the P5 must agree and these nations don’t want to end their dominant power in the UN.

 Migrating To A New Building Peace United Nations 2.0

So what can we do? Nations all over the world could leave the existing United Nations and migrate to a Building Peace United Nations 2.0, with far better funding.

Why not give all the power to those nations, organizations, and experts who are working to improve the world? We could structure this UN 2.0 to better fund justice and world peace.

We can make the best decisions for justice and peace by emphasizing input from humanitarian experts, development experts, scientists, and religious leaders.

This UN 2.0 could require rich nations to spend 1.5% of gross national income on humanitarian foreign aid in order to vote. Sweden spent 1.4% of their gross national income on developmental aid in 2015 but dropped to .94% in 2016.

Norway, the United Arab Emirates, and Luxembourg all spent over 1% of their gross national income on aid in 2016. Countries like Turkey, Denmark, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Netherlands spent between .75% and .65% of their income on aid in 2016.

Other developed countries spent between .26% up to .53% of their income on aid in 2016, while the US only spent .18% of our income on aid.

The US spends more on aid than any other country because of its huge, wealthy population. But the US is actually stingy in ratio per dollar of income, compared to most developed countries.

Military leaders understand the great importance of aid in preventing wars and terrorism. Over 120 retired admirals and generals sent a letter to Congress in February 2017 arguing against cuts in foreign aid.

Even retired General Jim Mattis, President Trump’s Secretary of Defense said, “If you don’t fully fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition.”

Requiring developed nations to spend 1.5% of their gross national incomes on humanitarian and developmental aid would transform the world and save us far, far more money by reducing the need for military spending.

As things stand now, much foreign aid is politicized, going to countries where rich nations have special interests. We should collect aid worldwide and let humanitarian and developmental experts decide where to best use it.

The US could cut its military budget by 40% or $300 billion each year and still have as strong a military as we did under Presidents Eisenhower, G.H.W. Bush, Nixon, or Clinton.

We could then use that money here at home for free health care, free college and vocational skills training, more and better housing for the homeless and poor, free addiction treatment, etc.

Read our peace petition to see how very cheaply we could provide the world with clean water, basic health care, education, and food, doubling food production and ending all hunger.

We could do all this with less than 4 months of US military spending. We can provide education in a culturally sensitive way, reducing costs even further using satellites and the Internet.

Later on, as nations see the great financial and peace benefits of aid, we should be able to reduce military spending even more and constantly increase the target for humanitarian and developmental aid to 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, and perhaps eventually 10% of gross national income.

 The Structure of Building Peace UN 2.0

We should give human rights, science, and international law experts major advisory inputs to the main body of the UN 2.0. We should use the input of religious leaders in matters of war and peace.

We need expert views from Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) because the most effective global lobbyists for human rights, women’s rights, and the environment have come from civil society, not from government.

Because developed countries can afford it, we should only give them votes in the UN 2.0 if they devote 1.5% of their gross national income to foreign developmental aid.

We could help the better angels in our civilization lead the way by giving far more voting power to nations with functioning democracies, low corruption, free speech, religious freedom, free college, & universal health care.

This system would give far less voting power to dictatorships, nations with high corruption, torture, repression of dissidents, & war crimes. Here’s how:


We can double a nation’s votes for each of the following: 

  • Freedom of Speech With Hate Speech Laws
  • Freedom of Religion
  • Functioning Democracy With Competing Political Parties
  • Universal Health Care
  • Low Corruption
  • Free or Cheap College with Universal Primary & Secondary Education
  • Outlawing Trade In Military Weapons, Establishing Military Embargoes On Conflict Nations
    Melting Down Military Weapons
  • Moving Private Drug Companies into Worldwide Sharing Research
  • Accepting International Court of Justice (ICJ or World Court) & International Criminal Court (ICC) Jurisdiction: The ICJ hears disputes between countries. The ICC prosecutes individuals, war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Countries must accept its jurisdiction even for government, military leaders. Like now, nations have primary responsibility, ICC only investigates if a nation fails to investigate, delays, or fails to prosecute when appropriate. Like now, there are safeguards against politically motivated prosecutions. France, United Kingdom, all NATO except Turkey already accept ICC jurisdiction!
  • Criminal Money Laundering Reform to capture criminal money flows with more transparent banking laws, close down the secrecy jurisdictions, close and/or break up large banks for money laundering, take away the profits for money laundering of criminal funds in real estate deals, penalize bankers and accountants who facilitate illegal money flows.
  • Science-based Drug & Criminal Laws (eliminate jail for personal drug use, adultery, consensual homosexuality, abortion, magic, establishing needle exchange programs for addicts, etc.)
  • Increasing Protections for the Environment, Reducing Fossil Fuels & Increasing Renewable Energy


We can completely remove a nation’s vote and impose sanctions for any of the following:

  • Future War Crimes, Torture, Crimes Against Humanity, Aggression
  • Supporting Terrorist Organizations
  • Sharing Military Technology with Nations Supporting Terrorists
  • Weaponizing Artificial Intelligence
  • Using Nuclear, Chemical, or Biological Weapons
  • Cybersabotage


We can divide a nation’s total number of votes by ½ for:

  • High Human Trafficking
  • High Criminal Money Flows
  • High Corruption
  • Jailing Nonviolent Dissidents
  • Being A Tax Evasion Haven Jurisdiction
  • Having Nuclear, Chemical, or Biological Weapons
  • High Child Labor


Poor Nation Bonuses:

 Poor nations get a vote without having to provide developmental foreign aid to other nations.

We will write off all excess interest on the debts of poor countries, freeing them to invest in development.

Poor nations can also earn far more humanitarian aid (clean water, infrastructure, food, basic health care & housing, education) by:

  • Melting Down Military Weapons
  • Outlawing Trade In Military Weapons, Establishing Military Embargoes On Conflict Nations
  • Implementing Land Reform to give citizens the ability to finance new businesses
  • Ending War Crimes, Torture, Crimes Against Humanity, Aggression
  • Ending Support of Terrorist Organizations
  • Ending The Use of Nuclear, Chemical, or Biological Weapons
  • Reducing Human Trafficking
  • Interrupting Criminal Money Flows
  • Reducing Corruption
  • Ending the Jailing of Nonviolent Political Prisoners
  • Improving Freedom of Speech With Hate Speech Laws
  • Improving Freedom of Religion
  • Developing Functioning Democracy With Competing Political Parties

Expertise from humanitarian organizations could rate nations on all the above criteria, fine-tuning the limits to qualify for the voting structure or for rewarding poor nations.

Experts in international law could establish the recommended laws for adoption to qualify for certain criteria in the voting structure and for rewarding poor nations.

These experts might even decide to modify the criteria to rank nations into three categories (high, average, and low) instead of two on some criteria, such as corruption or environmental protection.


The Building Peace UN 2.0 should establish full time commissions for:

  • Working Toward A UN Pharmaceutical Center: the science staff of pharmaceutical companies could work as they do now, but cooperatively worldwide, with more focus on the immediate needs of humanity and without wasting time and effort on copycat drugs with minor tweaks. The UN Pharmaceutical Center could incorporate charitable organizations that have developed medicines like Doctors Without Borders and Drugs for Neglected Diseases. Transparent UN administration would eliminate fraud and the financial waste of profits, duplicated research, executive bureaucracy, and advertising. Ideally, the European Medicines Agency, the United States Food & Drug Administration, and other governmental bodies evaluating medicines would work cooperatively worldwide in the UN Pharmaceutical Center.
  • Fighting Criminal Money Flows with Bank Transparency
  • A Global Minimum Corporate Tax (eliminating corporate incentives to shift and hide earnings)
  • Corporate Transparency in Sourcing Minerals in order to eliminate abuses and child labor, force governments to establish safe, regulated sources of conflict minerals. Enforce the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the Kimberley Process, and the High Level Panel on Illicit Financial Flows from Africa.
  • Model Trade Laws protecting workers, unions, & indigenous peoples
  • Effective Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement
  • Balanced Journalism showing both sides of controversies and using more scientists in media. (In the US, bring back Fair Media Act)
  • Worldwide Funding Mechanisms such as a tax on air travel, a tax on mining rights, and a 1 and ½% Robin Hood Tax. This Robin Hood tax on financial transactions like stocks, bonds, derivatives, futures, and credit default swaps could fund the UN and its work without disrupting regular people and their pension funds. In fact, it would help stabilize our markets by reducing the risky lightning-speed speculative computer trading of high-volume investors.)


We should strengthen the World Court, allowing it to review the decisions, behaviors, and precedents of the General Assembly for legality, to ensure the sovereignty of nations, and to make sure they don’t favor the special interests of certain people, groups, organizations, or nations.

The UN Disarmament Commission should expand from meeting for three weeks in the spring and making annual recommendations on principles and guidelines to a full time commission working on greatly increasing diplomacy, military weapons embargoes (worldwide, but especially in conflict zones like the Middle East), outlawing and punishing the trade in military weapons, and fighting the militarization mindset in arts, statues, and media.

We must support the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) far more. The average refugee is out of their country for 10 years. If we don’t house and settle them and educate their children, some of them will end up becoming terrorists.

UN 2.0 Would Eliminate the Security Council, give the General Assembly, with its voting members as described above, all its powers:                              

  • Responsibility to maintain international peace and security
  • Power to deal with grave human rights violations, including in conflict areas
  • Authority to investigate and mediate, dispatch a mission, appoint special envoys, or request the Secretary-General to use his offices. 
  • Power to order ceasefires, dispatch military observers or a peacekeeping force. 
  • Power to enforce rules and orders with penalties such as ejection from voting, economic sanctions, arms embargoes, blockades, financial penalties, freeze bank accounts, travel restrictions, cuts on trade, aid, diplomatic relations, and/or loans, or even military action.

This newly empowered General Assembly must be fully transparent, with no dominant members working out resolutions or setting agendas in private, and no informal consultations behind closed doors (as often happens now with the Permanent 5 members of the Security Council.)

The Peacebuilding Commission and the UN Economic and Social Council should be elevated to become the leading partners with the General Assembly and the UN Disarmament Commission in developing agendas, policies, and solutions.

The Peacebuilding Commission already does excellent work in funding conflict prevention, advocacy, cutting-edge analysis, global norms, sustainable development, and partnerships for humanitarian coordination.

These organizations should become larger and more central, cooperating with all the major regional and civil peace and human rights organizations for input, analysis, and help. For example, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch could help the Human Rights Council in evaluating nations for torture and the jailing of dissidents.

Organizations working on election monitoring like the Carter Center, Global Network of Domestic Election Monitors, and regional orgs like European Network of Election Monitoring Organizations can help rate countries on their level of democracy.

In general and especially for countries in conflict, the UN should work more closely with important financial and developmental bodies like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The UN especially needs close cooperation with the World Bank’s International Development Association, the International Finance Corporation, and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency.

The UN should also work closely with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), large established peace organizations (such as the Economic Community of West African States, Union of South American Nations, and the European Union’s Instrument contributing to Stability & Peace), charities, nonprofit, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

The trend in public health has been toward narrower mandates focused on important problems and away from centralized control or increasing the ability of governments to deal with health issues. The progress is welcome but we need more long-term funding for worldwide governance goals in health care, like epidemic preparedness and response.

The UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) and World Bank should be more transparent, should improve monitoring and accountability, and should incorporate new partnerships like the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, & Malaria, and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

Major donors like the Gates and Clinton Foundations have excellent monitoring and accountability and have migrated to the outside partnerships for their transparency and excellent monitoring of results.

Giving important Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) like the Gates and Clinton Foundations actual voting rights in the WHO and World Bank to help set priorities and efforts would strengthen UN efforts with their expertise and enable more important long-term efforts to strengthen governments worldwide.

We already have the humanitarian and legal expertise to draw up very specific, concrete rules to apply about when to intervene in conflicts, when to sanction nations, and when to end an intervention or lift sanctions.

Very clear, consistent rules about these things would be far more effective. Countries would know how to avoid problems and exactly how to change their behavior to lift sanctions.

Clear, consistent, fair rules set in advance would bring far more respect to the UN and international law. This more just approach would end the perception among weaker nations that powerful nations use the UN to bully them.

With better funding, this Building Peace UN 2.0 would far more effectively fight to end famine, war, human trafficking, injustice, and climate change, to improve global health, to eliminate nuclear, chemical, & biological weapons, and to protect the environment.

It would sanction torture, war crimes, human trafficking, & criminal money flows. Sanctions have worked to de-fund al-Qaeda, cripple murderous militias in Africa, slow nuclear proliferation, and protect innocent civilians from slaughter.

Building Peace UN 2.0 would encourage all nations to use religious, arts, music, media, and sports leaders to promote all these causes.

We Have Successfully Tamed War

With the rise of civilization, laws, schools, police, and ideas such as human rights over the centuries, violence has become far, far less common.

In fact, we can even make rules to limit and end war. After the 1925 Geneva Protocol outlawed poison gas warfare, nations held back and avoided its use in World War II.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, a treaty joined by 63 nations, basically ended wars of conquest. This treaty only allowed war for self-defense and made it illegal for countries to benefit from wars by keeping the territory, goods, or people they defeated.

In the 12 years before this treaty, some nation used war to take foreign lands every 10 months, with the average amount of land seized 114,088 square miles per year, roughly equal to 11 Crimeas.

After World War II, the US, England, and France took no new lands and countries returned nearly all lands stolen in wars all the way back to 1928. Ever since, taking land by war is rare, with Crimea the major exception.

We have established treaties to ban chemical and biological weapons, blinding lasers, land mines, cluster munitions, and placing nuclear weapons in space or on the seabed.

Even without treaties, the United States and Russia avoided the use of neutron bombs and anti-satellite weapons.

UN Peacekeeping Forces Would Be Far More Successful Than War Ways To End War

Recklessly killing civilians just fuels terrorism. We need to end the bullying of the world by the major powers. If we want peace, we must stop supporting oppressive dictators and their wars with military weapons. If we want peace, we must stop using weapons like burning white phosphorus and toxic depleted uranium.

We can only lose hearts and minds this way. We can win over the world with kindness. And the best way to do this is to use the Building Peace UN 2.0 to fight for justice, measuring our allies by their good acts and sanctioning those nations who sabotage peace and good will.

Only a coalition of the better angels of our civilization can effectively police the world. People will only respect armies that follow careful, humanitarian rules for engagement and only enter conflicts when clear violations of established worldwide norms occur.

The UN has no permanent military force. This means powerful nations like the United States take charge, adding to the perception that rich nations bully the poor, weak ones.

All the rich, developed member nations of the UN should set aside forces that the UN can call upon quickly in emergencies. By following the careful rules of engagement developed by human rights organizations, this would give the strong authority and legitimacy to needed interventions that might otherwise be seen as suspect and fuel anger and revenge.

Back To Top