The urgent need for fundamental reform of the United Nations, part IV: Only fundamental reorganisation of the United Nations can prevent its collapse

Us shouldering

International orders – like other organisations that are confronted with growth, change and differentiated growth of its departments (states in case of the international order) – have typical life cycles, and need periodic ‘upgrades’ to ensure their continued effectiveness and efficiency.

However, contrary to ‘normal’ organisations, international orders are anarchistic in nature and lack mechanisms to adapt in a non-destructive manner to changed circumstances, history shows.

Awareness of the underlying mechanisms of the System’s dynamics is required to avoid collapse of the United Nations, as I explain in this article.

Read more

The urgent need for fundamental reform of the United Nations, part II: The United Nations carries the seeds of its own destruction

ICBM north-korea-missile-620x413

It is a matter of time, before an international order in an anarchistic system becomes unstable and privileged states – like the United States in the current order – are challenged. International orders – including the United Nations – have a limited lifespan, because of their ‘built-in’ inability to change.

The United Nations can be considered the organisational ‘set-up’ of our current international order.

In a series of articles, I discuss the United Nations: Its purposes, the establishment of the United Nations and the process of social integration and expansion that preceded it, the urgent need for fundamental reform of the United Nations, and how this reform could be accomplished.

I will also explain that superficial reforms of the United Nations – which do not address the fundamental unbalance in the System – will cause a systemic crisis, as happened two times during the 20th Century.

Such a systemic crisis will cause a situation the United Nations is – according to its own purposes – supposed to prevent.

In the second article, I discuss  how – and why – international orders are established, and what purposes they fulfil from a system’s perspective.

Read more

Who is “begging for war”?

begging

“Cho Tae-yul, the South Korean ambassador, and Ambassador Nikki Haley of the United States during a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Monday to discuss North Korea’s nuclear tests. “The time has come for us to exhaust all of our diplomatic means before it’s too late,” Ms. Haley said” (source). But who is actually begging for war?

 

According to the US, North-Korea is “begging for war“. It is however a matter of perspective: The US – it can be argued – is begging for much more war, and not only in North Korea.

Read more

No missiles to Guam, but North Korea’s threats are not removed

applause

Another successful provocation – ‘trap’ – of North Korea for the United States.

The leadership of North Korea – Kim Jung Un – must walk a fine line to ensure its survival in the face of two existential threats: The continuous aggression of the United States and its allies, and the risk of social unrest and collapse in North Korea.

The last round of mutual threats and provocations, was a resounding success for Kim Jung Un – at least for now – who confirmed its hero-status at home, while the United States and its allies are still confronted with North Korea’s growing military capabilities.

Read more

‘North-Korea’ and further escalation of rivalries should not come as a surprise, Part 3

CM2-02

Front cover of the Clingendael Monitor 2017

In two preceding articles, I discussed the ‘Clingendael Strategic Monitor 2017’ with the title “Multi-Order”. This is the third and last article in this series. Contrary to what the Clingendael Institute and the ‘Monitor’ observe, I argue that the current international order is crumbling; its collapse is a matter of time.

Read more

America’s miscalculations

NuclearCountries2300

Source: The Washington Post.

When assessing security threats – like the escalating threats the United States and North-Korea are now exchanging – military and political analysts typically focus on two factors: the capabilities and intentions of the state that poses the threat. Does North-Korea have the capabilities to live up to its threats, and have the threats – explicit and implicit in the threats – any (political) credibility?

But a third factor – the stage of development of the international order – cannot be ignored, as I explain in this article.

Read more