by David Oughton | Feb 20, 2026 | United Nations
Although the United Nations was created in 1945 with the goal of ending war and solving other global problems, in many cases, the international organization has been unable to fulfill its mission. Since that time, wars have been fought, unscrupulous national leaders have done whatever they can get away with, and numerous global problems remain unresolved.
The reason for the spotty record of the world organization is that many organs of the United Nations are weak and, therefore, unable to cope adequately with the enormous job that lies before the international organization and the world. The solution is to transform these UN organs by drawing upon Article 109 of the UN Charter, which lays out the method for making changes in the UN system.
Here are some of the major structural problems of key UN organs that could be solved if enough people and countries were committed to making the United Nations strong and effective.
Currently, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) can only pass nonbinding resolutions addressing how national governments should behave. Even if a nation votes for a resolution, it is not required to follow it. The UNGA is not democratic because each of the current 193 countries has the same one vote, regardless of the size of its population. A few countries have over a billion people, while some have only a few thousand. It is thus possible for a resolution in the UNGA to pass by a two-thirds majority that represents only 8 percent of the world’s population. The 65 least populous countries with a combined population below one percent of the world’s population can block the passage of a substantive resolution in the UNGA. The solution is to use a system of weighted votes based on population and other factors so that the General Assembly can pass laws regarding violations of human rights, relations among nations, and other global problems.
The UN Security Council has often been ineffective because any one of the five permanent members (the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France) usually vetoes any resolution when it or one of its allies is involved in a dispute. Any permanent member can kill a peace resolution even if all of the other fourteen members on the Security Council vote for it. The solution is to have regional memberships on the Security Council using weighted voting so that no one nation can veto a resolution.
The UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) can only issue non-enforceable decisions. National leaders suffer no consequences for violating or for withdrawing from international treaties. Even though most nations abide by most of their treaties most of the time, national governments can violate or withdraw from treaties when they feel it is in their national interest without any concern for the common good. The solution is to give the ICJ the authority to require binding arbitration for disputes between nations or groups.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is based on a treaty that so far has been joined by only two-thirds of the world’s governments. One-third of the countries that have not joined the ICC treaty include Russia, China, the United States, and Israel. The jurisdiction of the ICC should become universal so that, in accordance with its charter, those individuals involved in genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression are prosecuted when national courts are unwilling or unable to do so.
The UN system must rely on dues from national governments, which are not always paid. The U.S. government, for example, owes billions of dollars in back dues to the world organization. Furthermore, the UN system, including its many specialized agencies, must do its important work on an extremely small budget. Almost every state in the United States has a larger annual budget than the UN system. One way to provide adequate funding for the UN system would be to charge a user tax on nations, corporations, and individuals for international travel and for exploring and using the resources of the common areas of our planet that are not part of any national territory.
These proposals will only be implemented when enough people from many countries vote for leaders who support strengthening the United Nations. Until then, wars, hunger, and disease will continue to plague our planet.
by Sovaida Maani Ewing | Feb 20, 2026 | Peace & Disarmament, United Nations
In 2011, the New START Treaty, which had been signed by the United States and Russia the previous year, came into effect. The Treaty aimed to restrict the number of nuclear warheads the two nations could deploy. It also provided for a verification system to ensure that both sides were complying with the Treaty rules by providing for on-site inspections of their respective nuclear sites. This month, the Treaty expired.
With the end of the New START Treaty, the nuclear arms race is likely to heat up again. This time, it will be more complicated and dangerous than it was during the Cold War, given that another big power China—has already vigorously entered the race. She has been determinedly and steadily growing her nuclear arsenal, particularly since 2012. Consequently, one of America’s great fears is that, instead of having to defend herself against Russia alone, she might have to face both China and Russia, especially if they choose to join forces.
The problem is that if, in anticipation of such danger, America starts to deploy more nuclear weapons, Russia will follow suit and China will likely step up her efforts even further, setting off a domino effect: China’s neighbor India, with which it has long had slow-burning border conflicts, is also likely to become nervous about a steady increase in nuclear deployments and so follow suit. Such a move would most probably trigger Pakistan to react in kind, to protect herself against her nuclear neighbor, India. And so the dominoes fall.
The problem will be compounded: those countries in Europe and Asia which have been relying on the American nuclear umbrella to shield them against aggression may well conclude that in an increasingly nuclear insecure world, the only effective way to bolster their own protection is to seek their own nuclear capabilities.
As smaller nations seek to acquire nuclear arms, their larger and more powerful neighbors may feel increasingly threatened and evince more aggressive tendencies to quash such nascent nuclear ambitions, leading to a world that is increasingly unstable and insecure.
We must act swiftly and decisively to arrest this dangerous descent into nuclear chaos, which can only result in a nuclear war that, however limited in geographic scope or duration, will have a devastating impact on the entire planet. The most effective path is for nations to create a world parliament that is democratically elected by the people of each country and therefore truly represents the interests of the collective whole. This parliament should be granted the authority to pass international laws on the basis of some sort of majority vote, that are binding on all the nations of the world. No nation can be allowed to opt out for any reason. The law must apply equally to all nations, great or small, powerful or weak. A suitable enforcement mechanism must also be devised and agreed upon, so that nations are suitably deterred from any temptation to flout the Parliament’s international law with impunity.
The time has come for humanity to take this next, inevitable step in its collective evolution. It is an idea whose time has come!
by Lawrence Wittner | Nov 25, 2025 | United Nations
Although the world is experiencing severe global crises, there are new efforts underway to create a more effective means of coping with them.
The crises are clear enough. They include vast slaughter in horrific wars, worldwide climate catastrophe, massive population displacement, and deepening poverty.
Moreover, these disastrous situations are likely to worsen in coming years. Modern wars are fought with increasingly devastating weapons, and preparations for nuclear war have escalated to the level of global annihilation. Similarly, time is running out for saving the planet from an environmental cataclysm, which will surely lead to heightened displacement and poverty.
There is, of course, a global organization formally tasked with tackling global problems: the United Nations. And the officials of that international entity do frequently make admirable recommendations for how these problems can be solved. Indeed, there is a consensus among most of the UN’s 193 nations about what should be done to preserve a decent future for humanity: end the wars; foster nuclear disarmament; sharply reduce the burning of fossil fuels; assist refugees; promote social progress; and feed the hungry.
The problem is that the United Nations, despite its virtues, remains at the mercy of the major military and economic powers that created it. And they are not only frequently at odds with one another, but are usually determined to see to it that their national interests―as they define them―prevail over the interests of the world community.
When it comes to international security, each of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States) can veto UN action―and all too often do so.
When it comes to UN efforts to address climate change, the situation is not much better, for the great powers continue to burn and (as in the case of Russia and the United States) extract and profit from selling vast quantities of fossil fuel. Consequently, they weaken or sabotage UN-sponsored climate agreements.
Another way the great powers hamstring the United Nations is by abandoning its operations and reducing its meager funding. The U.S. government, under Donald Trump, is particularly flagrant in this regard, pulling the United States out of key UN agencies and slashing voluntary contributions and mandated dues payments to the world organization. As of this October, the United States has compiled a debt of $1.5 billion in mandated funding to the United Nations, followed by China ($192 million) and Russia ($72 million).
Frustrated by the UN’s inability to adequately handle global challenges, a network of civil society organizations, scholars, policy experts, and diplomats took action on September 22, 2025 to launch Article 109, an international coalition to mobilize public opinion, social movements, and national governments to activate a UN Charter Review conference.
When the UN Charter was signed in 1945, the document’s drafters provided for its evolution through Article 109, which states that a Charter Review Conference can be launched by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly and any nine (formerly seven) members of the Security Council. As today’s Article 109 Coalition observes, this conference could update and empower the United Nations by enacting structural changes (e.g., reforming the Security Council, creating a UN Parliamentary Assembly, and establishing a Climate Council), as well as by making normative upgrades (e.g., supporting gender equality).
More than 40 civil society organizations are now part of the Article 109 Coalition. They include global campaigning organizations like Oxfam International, Democracy Without Borders, the Global Governance Forum, and the World Federalist Movement/Institute for Global Policy; regional organizations in Africa and Latin America; think tanks like the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft; and national organizations like EYC (which empowers youth in Cambodia) and Citizens for Global Solutions (which organizes in the United States). The Club de Madrid, a recent endorser of Charter review, is a forum that brings together more than 100 former Heads of State.
Indeed, recent heads of state and current government officials participated prominently in the September 22 launch event. Mary Robinson, former Irish President and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, delivered the keynote address. She was followed by Alexander De Croo (former Belgian Prime Minister), Helen Clark (former New Zealand Prime Minister and UN Development Program Administrator), and Ambassador Muhammadou Kah (The Gambia’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva).
UN Charter review has several potential drawbacks. For example, it could end up producing an amendment that reduces the purview of the international organization. Furthermore, the process will be lengthy. The Article 109 Coalition envisions a UN vote in 2027 to authorize a Charter review conference to convene in 2030. Finally, any amendment to the Charter must be ratified not only by two thirds of the UN membership, but by all permanent members of the Security Council―the five great powers that have helped enfeeble the world organization.
But these obstacles could be overcome. If there is a major campaign to strengthen the UN among members of the public, organizations, and nations, an amended Charter is likely to produce a more robust international institution. In addition, delaying a review conference until 2030 will provide the Article 109 campaign with the time to gather momentum and, also, increase the likelihood that some or all the world’s most stridently nationalist rulers (e.g., Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Benjamin Netanyahu) are no longer in office. Indeed, who really knows what kind of reforms the leadership of the Security Council’s five permanent members would be willing to accept in the future, especially if global conditions worsen and there is substantial worldwide pressure for action?
Farsighted national leaders, at least, are ready for the challenge and, like Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, are busy organizing for UN Charter Review. Addressing the September 2025 launch of the Article 109 campaign, Ireland’s Mary Robinson spoke out decisively for UN empowerment, proclaiming: “The moment has come, and we need to be brave.”
by Jerry Tetalman | Oct 14, 2025 | Peace & Disarmament, United Nations
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the major countries of the world have been aligning in two different blocs: NATO (which includes most European nations, the United States, and Canada), Japan, and South Korea, on one side, and Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and India on the other. Both blocs of countries are supporting their side in the war with weapons, trade, or troops. The negotiations to end the Ukraine-Russia war have so far failed due to Vladimir Putin’s reluctance to engage. NATO has so far only supplied weapons and military support. Still, it has been careful not to confront Russia with troops directly―probably because Russia has a large nuclear arsenal and the United States and NATO are trying to avoid a full-scale war. This strategy, so far, has resulted in a protracted stalemate.
If allowed to spread and escalate, however, the Ukraine-Russia war might trigger World War III.
So, how does the United States deal with this dilemma? One option is to do more of what it has been doing: provide more weapons and sanctions, in the hope that they will bring Putin to the negotiating table in earnest. Another, more daring approach is to look at what causes war and then address the root cause of war.
We live in a world where most nations or groups of nations solve their disputes through military force rather than the force of law. But in some parts of the world, we have replaced war with law and government. For example, the European Union has created peace between its member states, such as France and Germany, countries that had fought bitterly against one another in World Wars I and II. Now these nations settle their disputes by voting in the European Parliament and the European Union courts.
Why has the European Union succeeded in creating peace among its members while the United Nations has failed in these efforts? The answer lies in the fact that the United Nations is based on treaty law, a voluntary system of agreements among nations that lacks an enforcement mechanism that true law uses.
A new, more powerful, and democratic United Nations, however, could create peace among the world’s countries. By convening a UN reform conference under Article 109 of the UN charter, it would be possible to engage the world’s nations in creating a rules-based system of international law that is enforceable rather than voluntary. Building a civilized world based on law and rules, rather than on military power, would create a global framework for peace, and hopefully, reverse the schism of the world into warring camps.
Would such a framework solve the Russia-Ukraine war? Not directly, but it would provide an institution capable of resolving it.
If left on their current trajectory, international relations and military conflict will soon reach a dark place that will be difficult to recover from. The alternative is not radical; indeed, rules and laws provide the basis of civilization, and today they are desperately needed at the international level. These can be provided by a structure of limited world government, similar to that of the European Union. Individual nations would remain free to develop their own laws dealing with their internal affairs, but, in international affairs, they would abide by the laws between countries. In this fashion, a small piece of sovereignty would be exchanged for a peaceful world.
The world’s nations can begin this process by invoking Article 109 of the UN Charter to call for a global conference to craft a new, more effective United Nations. For such a mission to succeed, many details must be worked out, but the alternative of more war and destruction is unacceptable.
by Lawrence Wittner | Aug 26, 2025 | United Nations
If one examines Donald Trump’s approach to world affairs since his entry into American politics, it should come as no surprise that he has worked to undermine the United Nations.
The United Nations is based on international cooperation, as well as on what the UN Charter calls “the equal rights…of nations large and small.” It seeks to end “the scourge of war” and to “promote social progress” for the people of the world.
By contrast, Trump has advocated an aggressively nationalist path for the United States. Campaigning for the presidency in 2016, he proclaimed that “America First” would “be the major and overriding theme of my administration.” In his 2017 inaugural address, he promised: “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first.”
Indeed, “America First” became his rallying cry as he championed an aggressive nationalism. “You know what I am?” Trump asked a crowd in Houston. “I’m a nationalist, O.K.? I’m a nationalist. Nationalist!” Sometimes, his displays of superpatriotism―which appealed strongly to rightwing audiences―included hugging and kissing the American flag.
Given this aggressively nationalist orientation, Trump turned during his first administration to dismantling key institutions of the United Nations and of the broader system of international law. He withdrew the U.S. government from the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Health Organization, the UN Human Rights Council, and the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). He also had the U.S. government vote against the Global Compact on Refugees, suspend funding for the UN Population Fund and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, and impose sanctions on a key international agency, the International Criminal Court, which investigates and prosecutes perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.
Nevertheless, many of these Trump measures were reversed under the subsequent presidency of Joseph Biden, which saw the U.S. government rejoin and bolster most of the international organizations attacked by his predecessor.
With Trump’s 2020 election to a second term, however, the U.S. government’s aggressively nationalist onslaught resumed. In January 2025, U.S. Representative Elise Stefanik (R-NY), testifying at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on her nomination to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, assailed the world organization, and promised to use her new post to promote Trump’s “America First” agenda. “Our tax dollars,” she argued, “should not be complicit in propping up entities that are counter to American interests.” Joining the attack, Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho), the committee chair, sharply criticized the United Nations and called for a reevaluation of every UN agency to determine if its actions benefited the United States. If they didn’t, he said, “hold them accountable until the answer is a resounding yes.” He added that “the U.S. should seriously examine if further contributions and, indeed, participation in the UN is even beneficial to the American people.”
Simultaneously, a new Trump administration steamroller began advancing upon UN entities and other international institutions viewed as out of line with his “America First” priorities. At his direction, the U.S. government withdrew from the World Health Organization and the UN Human Rights Council, refused to participate in the UN Relief and Works Agency, announced plans to withdraw from UNESCO, and imposed new sanctions on the International Criminal Court. In the UN Security Council, the U.S. government employed its veto power to block a June 2025 resolution demanding a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and release of all hostages―a measure supported by the 14 other members of that UN entity.
The Trump administration has also worked to cripple the United Nations by reducing its very meager income. In July 2025, rescissions legislation sponsored by the administration and passed by the Republican-controlled Congress pulled back some $1 billion in funding that U.S. legislation had allocated to the world organization in previous budgets. This action will have devastating effects on a broad variety of UN programs, including UNICEF, the UN Development Program, the UN Environment Program, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and the UN Fund for Victims of Torture.
Moreover, the administration’s fiscal 2026 budget proposes ending UN Peacekeeping payments and pausing most other contributions to the United Nations. Although U.S. funding of the United Nations is actually quite minimal―for example, dues of only $820 million per year for the regular UN budget―the U.S. government has now compiled a debt of $1.5 billion (the highest debt of any nation) to the regular budget and another $1.3 billion to the separate UN Peacekeeping budget.
The Trump administration’s hostility to the United Nations is sharply at odds with the American public’s attitude toward the world organization. For example, a Pew Research Center poll in late March 2025 found that 63 percent of U.S. respondents said that their country benefited from UN membership―up 3 percent from the previous spring. And 57 percent of Americans polled had a favorable view of the United Nations―up 5 percent since 2024.
Furthermore, a University of Maryland public opinion survey in June 2025 found that 84 percent of Americans it polled wanted the U.S. government to work with the United Nations at current levels or more. This included 83 percent supporting UNICEF, 81 percent UN Peacekeeping, 81 percent the UN World Food Program, 79 percent the World Health Organization, and 73 percent the UN Environment Program.
Nor was this strong backing for a global approach to global affairs a fluke. Even when it came to the International Criminal Court, an independent international entity that the U.S. government had never joined and that Trump had roundly denounced and twice ordered sanctioned, 62 percent of Americans surveyed expressed their approval of the organization.
Trump’s “America First” approach can certainly stir up his hardcore followers. But most Americans recognize that life in the modern world requires moving beyond a narrow nationalism.
by Citizens for Global Solutions | Apr 3, 2025 | United Nations
Sixteen years after the fateful day the United Nations (U.N.) charter was promulgated in San Francisco, President John F. Kennedy memorably intoned on a return to that city that the U.N. “remains mankind’s best hope to conquer war, poverty, and disease.” Across subsequent decades this aspiration has been shared by U.S. presidents from Reagan, who believed that U.N. could help “bring about a new day,” to George H.W. Bush, who recognized the U.N. system as “poised to historic vision of its founders—a world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice.” Today, the U.S. posture seems to reduce the U.N. and its various agencies and departments to poker chips or lots at auction.
The late President Carter emphasized that “[t]he United Nations is the best available institution to support the values and aspirations that the United States shares with other peace-loving nations.” Of course, “best available” does not mean unflawed. The U.N. is a human-made institution and, therefore, fallible. It is incumbent on all those who support effective global governance, human rights, and the rule of law to underscore areas for improvement, while adapting to new polycrises and fresh challenges.
None of this is easy. But, as the leader of an organization that has supported the U.N. project almost since its inception, I am proud that our members have championed reform efforts while hewing to the vision that guided the U.N.’s founding.
What is easier is to reduce the U.N. to a stock to be traded, a poker chip to be gambled, or a lot to be auctioned to the highest bidder. The current U.S. administration uses its time in the General Assembly Hall to disavow goals related to sustainable development, withdraw from human rights commitments, and oppose such basic principles as “peaceful cooperation” and “judicial well-being.” Alarmingly, pundits have jumped on the bandwagon to reduce the project of humankind to a bad real estate deal.
This year, the U.N. will commemorate its 80th anniversary—slightly ahead of the average U.S. life expectancy projected for 2025 of 79.4 years. Anyone who has visited the Geneva premises lately, where an ongoing liquidity crisis has occasioned desperate measures, like heating cuts, has reason to fear for this octogenarian’s health.
Perhaps the venal attitude is best typified by an opportunistic “independent, non-affiliated initiative,” DOGE-UN, which claims to be a “non-profit organization incorporated in New York State.” According to its website, “It analyzes each institution and the broader geopolitical marketplace on whether to ‘hold, buy or sell’ their stakes in international organizations.” The outfit is indeed incorporated in New York as a business. It is not listed on the New York State Attorney General’s Office public registry of charitable and non-profit organizations. Research indicates it is not affiliated with the federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Whatever the tax status of this start-up, the approach it advances of “hold, buy, or sell” fails to recognize that global cooperation is not a zero-sum game. Viruses do not carry passports. Climate disasters do not wait behind velvet ropes. Nuclear reactors are not impressed by border demarcations.
Finally, if altruism fails to inspire global cooperation, perhaps self-interest can. “America first” style critics of the U.N. frequently fail to note that the United States is the largest recipient of U.N. contracts – far outstripping our dues. In the words of Peter Yeo, President of the Better World Campaign, “U.S. companies do well and do good by taking part in the U.N.’s lifesaving work.”
On the U.N.’s Oak anniversary, we must not take its strength and endurance for granted. Please consider making your voice heard by contacting your legislators and urging support for the U.N. and its agencies.
As you do, you may remind them that what transpired in San Francisco 80 years ago was not a poker game but a promise to humankind and our planet.
