[EA-3167]

It must be said that as far as that goes, the UN is designed to be a place to talk about problems, to air grievances, and the idea of it as a universal problem-solver and half-assed world government isn't particularly a part of how it started. Unfortunately as we're seeing what the UN has become is a plodding bureaucracy that occasionally has good intentions, and rarely sees them through. Mostly the UN is a clearing house for NGO organization and directing aid, which isn't a terrible thing, although their history of corruption, abuse of locals, ineptitude, and so on doesn't inspire confidence.

There's also the reality that the UN suffers from being an open forum, it means that the Qaddafi's of the world get to air their... unique perspectives as well. The rise of China and the decline of Russia has also created a pretty grim dynamic, but IMO the worst of the present state of affairs is the travesty of having countries like Iran chairing the Human Right's Council!

All in all I don't think I have a better idea for a substitute, and any ideas I did have would probably just reflect my own beliefs and desires rather than some universal principle. All in all I feel like the state of the UN does at least mirror the state of the world pretty well though. The US is all over the place depending on administration, Western Europe just plods along, Russia is a butcher, China is extremely complex in both its internal and external dealings (I don't want to generalize and I'm no expert, obviously there's some problems there however), and the Middle Eastern countries like the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia use the limitless power of vast wealth to warp and twist everything they touch.

[Spooky23]

I’d argue that the ridiculous aspects are a feature. By having a bureaucratic process select Iran, you’re removing the editorial element.

[raxxorraxor]

> countries like Iran chairing the Human Right's Council!

I don't think this is bad because you want to influence these countries in particular and inclusion here has a domestic effect. It isn't meant for grandstanding on certain values.

You could pick the most social countries for such a position, but that is more like preaching to the choir.

[egorfine]

> countries like Iran chairing the Human Right's Council

Council chair is a more or less ceremonial position, so it doesn't really matter all that much who's holding it. The irony of the chain being Iran is immense though.

[deepsun]

> UN is designed to be a place to talk about problems

Uhm, my understanding is that the main UN purpose is to prevent WW3. It was thansformed from the League of Nations that was created after The World War, but obviously failed on its mission with the WW2.

[delusional]

Nope, the UN charter predictably was pretty concerned with war, but all the equality and progressivism is in there too. As the very first paragraph of the original 1945 UN charter reads:

"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom"

[p_ing]

Preventing WW3 usually starts by airing grievances so the collective body can talk about said problems and come to a peaceful, diplomatic solution.

[deepsun]

I don't think that works anymore, UN can only issue "deep concerns" (c).

The real prevention starts when the collective body deploys troops (or authorize the deployment). The last such real deployment, authorized by UN, was for Iraq (Saddam Hussein), who really could start the WW3. But you know how it's portrayed now by authoritarians, so I doubt we will see any real action from UN anymore until the WW3 happens.