UN Reform

File this with jumbo shrimp, military intelligence, Microsoft Works, liquid gas, and virtual reality.

"The United Nations," I like to say, "Does not exist." This generally elicits incredulous looks, both from the conservatives who are convinced that the UN is running America and from liberals who believe that the UN will soon solve all the world's problems. Sorry kids, the UN doesn't exist.

When I was a kid, I was constantly creating clubs with my friends (it was fun, don't laugh). We would have codewords, meaningless secrets, and hated enemies. We might even stake out part of the park or the backyard for the club. The UN is the same thing - a club of states. It meets on borrowed ground, is both funded and run by the members, and the natural relations between member states are basically identical as the same states' relations outside the UN. The U.S. is just as powerful and wealthy, and just as loved and hated within the UN as without. The UN is the world; the world is the UN. Withdrawing from the UN would be meaningless, because we can never withdraw from the world. Likewise, the UN will never solve the world's problems; the world must solve its own problems.

So why does the UN exist? So we can all have a place to meet, and a few global efforts can be funded and run jointly. It's really that simple. There is no nefarious group of UN toadies waiting to install Kofi Annan as world dictator. There is no independent funding structure that the UN draws secret strength from. Nor does the UN have an ideological agenda; what it expresses is merely the world's agenda, expressed as a sort of weighted averaged. The 'weights' in the UN are just as complex as the real world, based on size, wealth, military power, moral authority, popularity, history, and other factors.

Can the UN really be reformed? No. Only if the world truly changes, in which case the UN will inevitably reflect those changes. The blue-ribbon commission reported its recommendation today. And, like the world, it was split. The main issue is the security council, where countries like India and continents like Africa feel that decision-making is enormously unfair. Newsflash, people: life is not fair. Nor is the world. Nor will the UN be, no matter what cosmetic changes are made to its organizational structure.

Imagine Brazil with a Security Council veto. That would make the Brazilians feel great, but the Argentinians would be jealous. And if any important votes came up, they could be threatened easily: "Vote with us," says the U.S., "Or we put a quota on coffee and oranges."

Veto power is a reality veto, not just an organizational prop. The five permanent members have the real power - economically, politically, and militarily - to block any serious threat to their interests. They are independent and have equal enough relations with the other four that they can withstand pressure and blackmail.

So should the UN be reformed? Sure, why not. Why not change the color of the carpet and the length of speeches while you're at it? The impact on real-world outcomes would be about the same.