The Alternative UN
Humanity has evolved from violent and selfish beginnings, but civilisation has often transcended its cruel heritage and accomplished marvellous achievements in the arts, sciences and social order. It continues to do so despite some primitive characteristics that it still needs to shake off and some new challenges that it has not had the will to face adequately.
Many of the world’s ills are man-made and countless individuals, no doubt, live as though violated by these primitive, state sponsored, anomalies that continue to plague society. Although we may feel powerless in the face of practices that are entrenched in the current structures of international politics, there is nothing to stop us from creating a virtual world order that will serve as beacon, while adding momentum to the promotion of harmony and well-being.
UN-aligned will be virtual until it can be actual.
Participation will help assert where one stands and embolden one’s position through the cooperation of like-minded people, but crucially, such a movement should, with the support of its members, spill into the real world as a force for change.This is the first aim of UN-aligned, and it revolves around a few basic principles. Ideally, these principles should be the norms that govern the United Nations, but well into the second decade of the 21st century and over seventy years after it foundation, the UN is still burdened with anachronisms that seriously limit its effectiveness.
Much has been written about the shortcomings of the UN and these are often discussed at the General Debates, as well as other political forums, but too many of its member-states are self-serving for steady and significant progress to ensue
The UN has contributed enormously to peace and progress, despite its limitations, but UN-aligned hopes to achieve even greater ones, as it is not bound by the fetters that strangle the former, such as the complex and self-serving interests of the permanent members of the Security Council.
Members, or member-states of UN-aligned, will therefore have to agree to espouse basic rights and responsibilities and abide by them.
UN-aligned does not have to include superpowers or their money. There will be no hiding behind vetoes, nor will despotic regimes be able walk through these doors for an aura of respectability. UN-aligned does not have to court participation through dubious compromise. It is not the number of people or states that will make UN-aligned a beacon for change, but the integrity of its ideals and intentions. Of course, a greater amount of voices would be heard more easily, but this would be pointless if what was being said was vague, uninspired, or compromised.
The Human Rights Council passed a resolution on the protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
While the ICC is busy with sanctimonious show trials in the Global South, the need for a supranational criminal court that prosecutes corruption without fear and favour is rising.
One cannot help comparing Guterres to a spouse in an abusive relationship who does what they can to protect their children from constant harm.
The WHO regional director for Africa, Matshidiso Moeti, warned of a growing risk of pathogenic outbreaks on the continent, caused by human proximity to wild and domesticated animals.
Mexico threatens to sue the UN following the WHO’s failure to provide the country with covid vaccines.
The UN defines torture as cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Solitary confinement clearly reaches this bar, stripping prisoners of their rights to socialisation at the cost of their mental health.
UN-aligned calls on the OHCHR to take action to ban harmful conversion practices against LGBTQ+
The Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Belarus, Anaïs Marin, issued her annual report on June 29, which paints a dire picture of tightening legislation and diminishing civil and political rights.
After the Soviet Union invaded Finland, the League of Nations kicked the country from its council. Why doesn’t the UN do that too? Well, for all sorts of reasons, but mainly because it is bound to the moral low ground.
Appeasement is giving the school bully your lunch money in order to avoid being beaten up. In politics, however, it is more like giving the school bully someone else’s lunch money, to stop them from being picked on.