So this is something ive thought about a little bit and never really see it talked about much. Im curious to hear what others here think.

Basically the premise is this. We had the league of nations and that failed. Now we have the UN and while arguably more effective in some ways atleast its still pretty bad at reigning in rogue states like the US and Israel for example.

So thinking about the future how should we change the structure of something like the UN to make it more ideal for a world post-US Empire. Im also curious to hear if you all would even support an organization like this or if you prefer to allow nations to engage in diplomatic talks one on one and not have an international community butting in.

What level of control should a “UN” have, and what mechanisms should it have access to for putting pressure on member nations if any?

  • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    I don’t think any international framework after the UN should have the ability to “reign in” rogue nations. We should not build some kind of world police, the US international order shows the pitfalls of this. The more powerful and influential nations will exploit punitive measures.

    Instead, we should strive to create a world where rogue nations can easily circumvent economic and political pressures, at least if they enough allies, even if the majority is against them. Basically, a kind of global anarchism (horizontal order). I would be very skeptical of a one world state, or something that tries to be like that if it was bourgeois led, or consisted primarily of bourgeois members.