BACK IN my elementary schooldays, I remember flying the Honduras flag during the United Nations (UN) Day. We were told it was pretty important event, and that the UN represented the best ideal for the world.
Today, I see the UN as a sick joke, and that it would likely die in the future.
I could be wrong, but neither Russia, China nor the United States really pay attention to what the UN says or does, and the only reason why weaker countries appeal to it is because they have fewer options.
At best, the UN is treated as a tool by member states to pursue geopolitical interests, not as a medium for establishing cooperation.
As we enter the age of bifurcation and mercantilism, the UN faces a grim future. I asked artificial intelligence, given existing geopolitical parameters, and they gave a three out of 10 probability, when asked about a formal dissolution, and a nine out of 10 when asked about a hollowed scenario.
That sounds about right. The UN was an artifact of the post-World War II world, one which sought to prevent the return of another world war by uniting the countries of the world based on egalitarian assumptions.
It sounded good in my grandfather’s time, but that was a long time ago, and the world has changed. Cooperation only works in certain scenarios, usually with the support of a hegemon to pacify competing interests. In most cases, though, countries and empires operated based on interests, and those tend towards friction.
So the UN is likely to end up like the League of Nations. Maybe it will be replaced. Maybe it will formally dissolved. Or more likely, it will limp along as an increasingly irrelevant institution, until it fades away./PN
