The lack of space and the absence of proposals on Climate Change in most of the speeches made by the Heads of State at the last UN Assembly was alarming.
Especially when contrasted with the alarming reality that the planet is beginning to experience climate change, to the point that, by next year, the goal set in Paris for 2050 of a 1.5 degree Celsius increase in temperature above the average of the pre-industrial era is expected to be reached, 26 years ahead of schedule! It is so serious that there is already talk of a goal of 2.6° increase by 2050, which would be catastrophic.
This acceleration in the increase of global warming and its disastrous consequences, impose that humanity urgently implements effective measures to face it.
The UN should be the ideal organization to design, coordinate and guarantee their execution. However, the political-military conception that has prevailed in its constitution and functioning, directed in practice by the five permanent members of the Security Council, has prevented it not only from fulfilling this role, but also from successfully confronting the other serious problems facing humanity, such as migration, hunger, poverty, child malnutrition, human rights, environmental preservation, democracy, drugs, etc.
WHAT IS THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL?
The UN was created by the victorious powers of World War II as a forum for all nations. Since the fundamental fear at the time was the repetition of such terrible conflagrations as that war, they created a body within the UN, the Security Council, with the aim of eliminating any possibility of global armed conflict, granting five nations the right to veto any of its decisions or resolutions.
It certainly achieved its goal. Although opportunities have not been lacking, in nearly eighty years there has been no direct conflagration between the great powers.
This has not meant that wars and conflicts have disappeared. On the contrary, there have never been so many simultaneous wars and upheavals in the history of mankind as in the last eight decades, almost always as a result of the appetite for domination, first by the two poles of power that emerged in the post-war period, and then by the so-called unipolar world. Thus transforming the rest of the world into a bloody chessboard, with many nations becoming its pawns.
Thus we saw wars and invasions in Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Palestine, Afghanistan, Haiti, Grenada, Poland, Sudan, Czechoslovakia, Angola, Laos, Cambodia, Algeria, Iraq, Dominican Republic, Hungary, Libya, Syria, Georgia, Tibet, to mention but a few, in addition to the countless coups d'état, political assassinations, civil wars and insurrections that occurred during that period.
With such a structure, the UN is not capable of facing the new realities. Its complete restructuring is urgently needed.
Powerful global economic and political groups see their interests threatened by the measures taken to this end, and will try to contaminate them. An example of this are the cosmetic proposals, in the Catopardian style of changing so that nothing changes, of limiting them to increasing the number of nations with a permanent seat on the Security Council, or of giving greater power to its Secretary General.
MULTIPOLARITY: MORE OF THE SAME
Another proposal that has been circulating is that of moving towards a multipolar and multicentric world, which in practice is nothing more than sanctifying a similar scheme of domination under another name.
What really is a "pole of power"? It is a system in which a nation or group of nations constituting the center of the "pole" has economic, political and military control over another group of dependent nations, a periphery euphemistically called "area of influence".
The power of these "poles" is directly related to the amount of territory, resources and population of these "areas of influence".
The first modern multipolar system was established at the end of the 19th century, when the European powers divided up most of the world through the establishment of colonies. That balance did not last long. A few decades later, the doors were opened to the First World War, due to the desire of some of them to redistribute the possession of those colonies.
If a multipolarity scheme is established, the struggle between "poles" to expand their "areas of influence" at the expense of the other poles will be repeated, and given the impossibility of resolving it with a direct war between them over nuclear weapons, the Third World countries will continue to be the pawns on the global chessboard, as can already be seen in the confrontations in the African Sahel nations such as Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, in Southeast Asia, in Ukraine, in Latin America with wars, sanctions, coups and counter-coups. Burkina Faso, in Southeast Asia, in Ukraine, in Latin America with wars, sanctions, coups and counter-coups. It is in this scenario that we must understand the stimulated aggravation of the confrontation, and probable war, between Venezuela and Guyana.
The other important aspect is that, given the implosion of the instituted "global order", when its main legal, financial and even sporting institutions were placed in defense of the interests of the Western pole in the Ukraine War, such as the IMF, WTO, SWIFT, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, etc., it is obvious that any pole that emerges will take care of itself and build its own economic and legal structures, which would prevent, for a time, any possibility of global institutionality.
Concentrating almost all of humanity's efforts on global power struggles and neglecting its very serious problems would mean the end of our race. We must internalize that these problems, including Climate Change, threaten EVERYONE, and must be faced TOGETHER.
In this sense, our proposal is to replace the current conception of the Security Council with a Council of Humanity, whose main goal would be to successfully confront the enormous problems facing human beings. The main geographical areas of the planet would be represented on an equal footing: South America and the Caribbean, Africa, Africa, Europe, the Middle East, North America, Central Asia, Southeast Asia; as well as the most populous countries: China and India. India's recent invitation to the African Union to the G-20 meeting, and not to individual countries of that continent, is an interesting precedent that indicates that this is the way forward.
If consolidated regional blocs can be structured in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean, conflicts and wars will be significantly reduced, since no "pole" will be able to intervene either militarily or politically in the countries that comprise them. This would also allow all regions to participate actively and directly in global decision-making.
The road to achieve this will not be easy. Many obstacles will have to be overcome. But reality is stubborn. The worsening of environmental deterioration, and other problems that cannot be hidden or minimized, will serve as a powerful pivot to achieve it.
Two conditions are essential to achieve this objective.
First: the creation of solid organizations that bring together the nations of each region. Let us remember that Africa alone has more than 1.2 billion inhabitants and Latin America more than 650 million inhabitants, which together constitute true unconquerable rocks.
Second: We must de-ideologize the study and the search for solutions, not conditioning them to comply with the postulates of political, economic or ideological theories. With leaders who act without pre-judgments, concentrating on the problems to be faced.
WE MUST KEEP IN MIND THAT THE VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS WE SUFFER TODAY ARE A CONSEQUENCE OF THE NEGLIGENCE OR IGNORANCE OF PAST LEADERS, AND THAT THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN WILL BE A CONSEQUENCE OF THE ACTIONS OF TODAY'S LEADERS.
HEADER