Comments 10

保障联合国的未来

Sep 1, 2016 Kevin Rudd

上海——随着现有的国际秩序变得更加四分五裂，强势全球治理机构对迎接世界战略、经济和可持续发展挑战起着至关重要的作用。但我们的现有机构——包括，首先是联合国——现在正处在最脆弱的状态。

联合国虽未破裂，但却困难重重，特别是越来越多的国家将其视为礼节性的外交马后炮，并在其他地方寻找全球重大问题的解决办法。从叙利亚到伊朗、朝鲜、恐怖主义、网络安全、庇护寻求者和难民、移民、埃博拉以及新出现的人道主义援助资金危机等一系列问题上都出现了这样的状况。

虽然联合国仍具备很多优势，但也不乏明确的结构性弱点。联合国期望的目标和实际业绩之间相差越来越远。但世界需要的联合国不仅能讨论政策，而且能将讨论结果落实到实际当中。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

Magharebia/Flickr

Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Getty Images

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 10 in all 10 Comments on this article

Rachel Cunningham Nov 28, 2017

Related reading: "The Dangers of Nuclear Bombast", Javier Solana - https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-iran-deal-north-korea-by-javier-solana-2017-11
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
emmanuel cassimatis Oct 16, 2016

The UN is a formidable institution, but indeed it needs to reinvent itself. It was made and could answer at a time when the world was different. Things have changed over the past three decades. Mainly one topic: the world is accelerating at a speed never seen before! And the UN is not equipped to analyze, come up with options or act in such a world. Sovereignty of countries needs to be kept, however at the same time an institution is needed to voice solutions to population growth, inequalities, technology control, data privacy, etc. The issue of speed vs. control. A book will be coming up in December, called "the Accelerating World: speed vs. control", with some directions for thoughts and questions open to further debates. Above all, it is question of pooling ideas and perspectives around a common goal - adapting to new world conditions.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Jones Sep 10, 2016

Multilateralism is simply not enough. We have to have the machinery to act omnilaterally since we only have the one planet.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Jones Sep 10, 2016

1] A stable peace can never be achieved while nation states each have their own armies. This situation, long out of date, still obtains to-day and is a built-in recipe for conflict.

2] Global peace can only be guaranteed globally and this can only happen when all weaponry is handed over to global control.

3] For this to happen, the UN has to be empowered to set up and command a global security force.

4] Such a force must be pledged never to wage war but to act only and always in conformity with the charter of human rights.

5] Force must only be used to disarm those who are illegally armed and who refuse to surrender their weapons voluntarily.

6] All arms trading must be made illegal and all nuclear, chemical or biological weapons must be safely destroyed.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christopher williams Sep 6, 2016

There is a problem for many of us regarding the amount of money spent by international organizations on salaries and staff benefits as against providing the support services for those who need it most. With 65 million displaced persons around the world (due to war or extreme climatic conditions), bodies like UNHCR should be somewhat less rich in personnel. What is a reasonable percentage of funds provided for the staff? I would suggest a target of 5% may change the attitude of a lot of people to providing support.
With the ageing population in most countries, there is a good source of volunteer capability; perhaps the UN could reduce costs by even more if this is used?
That may also apply to those who want to serve in the higher echelons of the UN; I wonder if Angela Merkel has had enough of German politics to take on the Sec Gen job for a zero salary??
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ray Comeau Sep 4, 2016

Has the UN been a failure? Or has pollyanna socialist & politicians finally arrive to the fact the UN was created for the big 3 to control issues of significant interest to their geo-political agendas and the peons can fiddle with the other stuff.
What force the UN has comes from the big 5 and they can walk under a new structure; but even now our little friend in the Philippines can tell the UN and its threatened ICC to piss-off, because nothing will happen unless one of the big 3 says so.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Morgan Sep 2, 2016

he UN needs to be torn down and replaced by a model fit for purpose in the 21 century. The Permanent members of the Security Council need to be replaced with Europe given one seat and a possible seat for India or Japan. A new system of simple majority needs to be adopted to prevent the frequent gridlock we now suffer. Russia with aggressive stance to flagrant abuse of international norms should lose its seat, in fact it should have lost it after the breakup of the Soviet Union. We are in desperate need of a functioning Security Council with the means to back up any decisions they make.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Sep 2, 2016

+1. In time the UN may regain significance, as the international community develops into a multi-dimensional balance of power between:

* the US -- shining city on the hill ... if you're from the 3rd world
* Europe -- that ziploc bag of jigsaw puzzle pieces that bring back faint memories of a box with a pretty picture on it. where's that damn box?
* China -- lootin', shootin', and pollutin' -- globalization, meet mirror!
* Russia -- arch-nemesis of all that is bright and pure, eternal spoiler of neocon benevolence, last bastion of anti-liberalism, communism, aggression, etc
* Middle east bloc, the not-so-coherent group of gay-executing, infidel-executing, theocracy-autocracy-any-kind-of-ocracy, but hey, they're strategic allies ... except when it turns out they've been naughty and they turn into enemies ...
* rest of the world
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Sep 1, 2016

This is a political article, written by a politician. The job of politicians is risk management and nothing but. Their job is not to travel around the world as trade emissaries, attending useless trade and other fairs and conferences and so on. The UN has no teeth and never will, a touristic attraction, yes..
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Sep 1, 2016

It is a bit ironic somebody from Australian politics asking for the UN to seek initiatives on SDGs when Australia is in the top handful of polluters per capita and there is relentless pursuit of environmentally harmfull activities

'Failure to achieve the SDGs – which comprise 17 goals and 169 specific targets – would amount to an indictment of the UN’s raison d'être'

Surely this applies to Australia also, good housekeeping starts at home
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/J2fA5WB/zh;

保障联合国的未来

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

India’s Trifecta of Failure

This Time Really Is Different

Open Questions About Open Banking

The Dialectic of Global Trade Policy

A Bright Future for Africa’s Girls

The Ideology Trap

Getting Serious About Russia Sanctions

The Sikorski Doctrine

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register