U.N. 2.0 – The Real U.N.

Several agencies of the United Nations do great work globally.

• The World Food Programme (WFP) is the world’s largest humanitarian organization addressing hunger and promoting food security.
• The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) supports the promotion of agroecology and sustainable agriculture.
• The UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) supports the Great Green Wall initiative in Africa, aiming to restore degraded land, combat desertification, and improve livelihoods across the Sahel region.
• The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) leads global environmental efforts, including climate action, biodiversity, and pollution reduction.
• The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) works in about 170 countries to eradicate poverty, reduce inequalities, and build resilience.

And there are more.

The Security Council – a fundamental flaw

But there is a fundamental flaw in the UN – the Security Council – that turns out to be not that secure at all.

The UN and its predecessor were born out of the greatest global traumas in recorded history. The League of Nations was formed following the end of the Great War (WWI). The UN was formed following WWII, alongside significant advances in global governance, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Let’s call this UN 1.0.

But there is a fundamental flaw in the UN – the Security Council – that turns out to be not that secure at all. The permanent members of the UN Security Council have veto power. So, for example, if the other members of the UN were to determine that the US attacks on Iran are illegal, the US has the power of veto to ensure that the initiative does not succeed. The permanent members are the U.S., China, Russia, Britain and France. They got the job by being the largest economies on the winning side of the Second World War.

This single design flaw will forever prevent the UN from leading effective global governance to create a just and peaceful world.

France and Britain are rehabilitated colonial powers and are typically responsible members of the UN. Since 1945, the US has conducted military interventions, including covert operations, in 40 to 50 countries. The vast majority were not sanctioned by the UN. Russia has conducted about 20. While China has a more restrained deployment involving border disputes, it is locked into economic conflict with the US and bullies countries to accept its stance on Taiwan.

While the UN does great work, with these dynamics at play, we have little hope for peace or healing the climate.

What’s more while, as at 18 March 91 member states, including Britain and France, have paid their regular budget assessments for 2026, the US, Russia and China have not. The US is $2 billion in arrears.

UN 2.0

So let’s redesign it. A new security council could be a meritocracy, rather than the biggest players winning the last conflict. Perhaps members could be drawn from an objective measure of citizen well-being? How would that look if we used the Human Development Index (HDI) as a criterion, with the addition of continental location to ensure demographic balance? The membership, based on the 2023 rankings, would be:

• Iceland (Europe) 1^st
• Australia (Oceania) 7^th
• Singapore (Asia) 14^th
• Canada (North America) 16^th
• Argentina (South America) 47^th
• Seychelles (Africa) 54^th

Three more places would go to the top-placed remaining countries:

• Switzerland (2^nd)
• Norway (3^rd)
• Denmark (4^th).

This list is quite Nordic and some of the countries are tiny. It is also Eurocentric with four European countries, but they are setting the pace for a better world. Eight of the top 10 HDI countries are European. The US, Russia, and China are ranked 21^st , 52^nd and 75^th, respectively.

Making this change is a challenge. Here is a possible pathway. The middle powers lead and quit the UN, encouraging all others to do so. This would leave only the permanent Security Council members and their vassal states. The new UN – let’s call it the Real UN – develops a new charter that includes mechanisms for global citizen assemblies for future revisions. They invite France and Britain back in on a good behaviour bond. They get by on a much-reduced budget for a year or so, and then invite the other three former permanent security council back in.

Of course, rogue states would still misbehave until the collective creates a degree of unity sufficient to impose powerful disincentives for bad behaviour.

This is admittedly simplistic, but wouldn’t it be worth exploring?

Using the HDI is one suggestion – what’s yours?