The time has come to fix the UN. This idea explains how to do it. But first, the 'why'. Addressing the General Assembly last week for the final time before leaving office, Cyprus President Nicos Anastasiades relayed some hard truths about what he saw as shortcomings leading to the “gradual loss of credibility of the United Nations” and called for Member States to generate the political will to reform and modernize the Organization. “How is it then that we come back again and again, year after year, as a kind of ritual, to attest to the dismal lack of effectiveness for some and the embellishment attempt for others, for what is in fact our inability to fulfil the aims of the UN Charter?” he said, recalling he had posed a similar question some years ago. “Why do the decisions of the Security Council remain in their overwhelming majority sheer certificates attesting violations? Why are international law and international agreements not implemented? Why do strategies and programmes, aiming at creating better conditions for people that are suffering, remain wishful thinking?” he added. While acknowledging that the UN was established at the end of the Second World War, President Anastasiades said that its lack of effectiveness and inflexibility stemmed from more than its age, and was due, to, among others, “the hegemonic tendencies by some states with the aim of creating new empires, at the expense of smaller States; the financial interests of some Member States; and “alliances based on common interests lead to tolerance towards states which violate international law, if the offender is under their sphere of influence.” With all this in mind, and “in light of...the imminent danger after 77 years of a new World War, following the illegal invasion of Russia to Ukraine” he said “there is no choice but to take bold but necessary decisions to reform and modernize the Organization.". Well said Cyprus President Nicos Anastasiades! Salute to you! Now, this brings me to the following idea posted on this app a few weeks ago, as to how the UN can be fixed. It is a longish idea, called United Nations 2.0. It explains what we need to do as a global community to fix up the United Nations. I repeat part of it here, if anyone wants to vote for it: United Nations 2.0 .... the UN was set up in 1945. When it was being formed, the big ticket item was developing processes for resolving international conflicts. Back then, bequeathing some limited powers to the winners of the second world war to promote security was thought appropriate, but another layer of government regulation – global governance – was not needed. There were 2.3 billion people in the world. Interconnectedness between peoples was limited. Resources were plentiful. We had our local and national governments. That was enough. Now it is 2022. The global population is 8 billion. The capacity for people to affect the interests of one another from one side of the planet to the other, either on purpose (eg cyber), or by accident (eg pollution), are exponentially greater. Global resources are not plentiful. Our local and national governments simply cannot protect us from the burgeoning risks that other countries and people from afar present to us. In short, a new need has emerged. A need for enforceable global rules. Since the UN Charter was signed, there has evolved a need for ‘common sense global regulation’ - regulation that everyone in the world knows is needed, and that can be enforced, in response to our new found capacity to shoot, pollute and commute to each other from one side of the planet to the other. Managing our security is no longer a transactional pursuit, one that can be dealt with by an occasional resolution of the UN, or the actions of self-appointed random international actors. Our security must now be seen as a regulatory matter. Global regulation is overdue. It is and will be the only way we can keep those who can harm us in check. Now I will take you on a very short trip through the relevant UN powers, before explaining what needs to be done: Article 39 The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. Article 41 The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. Article 42 Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. The Charter also provides for the General Assembly to establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions (Article 22). OK, so, having regard to these powers, to humanity’s new needs, and to the geopolitical challenges of today - including that all permanent members of the Security Council which holds the most power in the UN will veto any attempt to dilute their own powers, what to do? On analysis, the way forward is clear.: To the existing agenda of the General Assembly (which is, by the way, already way way too long, but full of talking points and not action points), needs to be added a list of items in the nature of proposed enforceable regulations to be recommended to the Security Council. These will be regulations deemed, by experts that advise the General Assembly, and the General Assembly itself, necessary for the security of humanity. Once considered by the General Assembly, there is nothing preventing such resolutions for regulation, and proposals for enforcement of regulation, from being sent, by two thirds vote of all member countries as is currently required, to the Security Council. As long as they are regarded as for the security of mankind, there is nothing then preventing the Security Council from voting on them, and, depending on the vote, acting on those recommendations as they deem fit. In order to implement these new regulations, and enforce them, the UN will need to set up administration and enforcement agencies. As the UN is good at setting up agencies, this is not a problem. This can be done under Article 22, which gives the UN the mandate to set up such bodies as are necessary to the performance of its functions. Importantly, by doing it in this way, such regulations and their enforcement will be lawful, not least by reference to Article 24 of the UN Charter that provides the Security Council has a mandate to provide security to the world. Think of it: The UN, not just issuing resolutions, but actually regulating and enforcing. Doing stuff. Saving the Amazon. Saving the Congo. Limiting emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere. Drawing up rules around the development of Artificial Intelligence. Maybe even taking steps to keep the internet free and accessible. These are jobs for the United Nations, not self appointed actors everywhere, as is happening now. The point is that the UN does have power to do these things. Now, in order for the UN to do these things in our interests, it is integral to this process that the General Assembly must be provided with an expert panel on everything that needs regulation. The time has passed for political actors to bring their own agendas to the UN table. It must be agreed, at the outset, that the General Assembly will inform itself by expert panels on what needs to be done for the security of humanity. As mentioned above, the UN has power to set up whatever bodies it needs to make thigs happen, under Article 22. So, it is absolutely essential that under this plan, the UN set up the expert panels! If the UN General Assembly needs an expert panel on AI regulation in order for it to make recommendations to the Security Council for AI regulation, give it to them. On space regulation, give it to them. On climate regulation, on disease control regulation, on oceans, give it to them. Expertise resides in the wider world. It does not reside in the UN delegates. So where the General Assembly needs expertise to make a recommendation to the Security Council, give it to them, by establishing expert panels. After receiving advice from the expert panels, and I would think most of us would agree only then, should there be voting by the General Assembly on regulations that are enforceable world wide. Once through the General Assembly, those recommendations, in accordance with the existing UN Charter, go to the Security Council who can, if they consider them relevant to our security, then act on them as they see fit. We now have rules. It is true, certain permanent members may not agree to all regulations proposed, and one permanent member country can torpedo a rule that everyone else wants. Sobeit. So it should be. That is the way of the world. The world has signed on to a system that in 1945 deliberately made it hard for the UN to regulate. We didn't sign on to a world government. So passing rules will be hard. But as night follows day, common sense rules under this method will be made and enforced for all our benefit. Common sense global regulation for the benefit of mankind is completely doable under the current UN Charter if it takes these steps. Why should we be afraid to fix up the world? Bring on United Nations 2.0!!!