This article was written in December 1995 at the 50th anniversary of UN. Continuation article will appear here that will take aocount of the recent developments in the last 11 years.

When the euphoria of celebrations at the UN Headquarters in New York has died down and everybody gone home hoping that everything will be fine without them taking any action. Actually this is a time when the role and structure of the UN and Security Council needs a very cool and considered appraisal.

When world leaders get together to present their points of view the Western nations' agenda is always loaded with their own ulterior motives disguised in humanitarian vocabulary such as Freedom, Individual Rights, Equality and so on. No doubt these are the concepts to which all civilized liberal societies subscribe, but sadly they use them as tools when it is convenient to their aims.

On the other hand developing countries come to these gatherings with more passionate appeals, but they tend to skip the issues of which they themselves are guilty. As a result their rhetoric lacks the force needed to sway the world opinion.
Looking at the 17 point agenda agreed, last year, by the World Assembly recently, it strives to declare many good things. But if we want this august body to have real meaning and purpose into the next century it must make far reaching structural changes. Since UN’s inception in 1945 the world has changed dramatically. It needs to re-examine not only its aims and objectives but its representational and financial structure too.

There are five permanent members of Security Council who have the power to veto any change and three out of those five representing governments, who believe in systematically centralizing power in their own hands and cutting all social programs in their own countries. They see the UN as a heavily burdened body full of ideologists. Other two members, Russia and China are caught in their own domestic problems created by the new world order.

In the UK the Tory government is known for its strategy of starving a public service of funding in order to make a case for its ineffectiveness, and then either to get rid of the service completely or privatize it. If it could get its way, it would like to see all UN agencies in the hands of few multinationals.

The US also has a record of using, abusing and belittling the UN and its agencies as it feels fit for the time and purpose. It went to the UN when it needed to give a bloody nose to the Sadam Hussain and ignored it completely when it needed to go Grenada and Haiti. It has used all fair and unfair means to change governments in South America, the region that it treats as its own back-yard. Additionally, the US ignored the World Court ruling when it was found guilty of terrorist attacks on Nicaraguan oil storage tanks, part of its full scale destabilization of Sandanista Government.

Similarly, France's arrogant rebuff to international opinion over its continuing testing of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific and thereby made the world feel slapped in the face.

The fourth member, China, is going through a painful realization that any ideology including Communism must adjust to the changing needs of the time. Most of its energy is expended in covering its Human Rights abuses and its lack of a democratic government. It must adjust to the new realities.

The major event of the second half this century is the disintegration of the Soviet Block. The change was so great that if one morning you wake up and hear the news that Earth has lost its South pole and is left with only one 'the North Pole'. You can imagine how much chaos it will create. The Earth may loose its orientation and its annual cycle. So was the effect of this one party/one opinion world that we were left with. The balance created by the cold war was like the tension between two poles of the Earth, that keeps it's equilibrium. One pole/one opinion world is very much in danger of getting loose from its rocker altogether.

When very corner stone of US foreign policy, Communist Soviet Union was not there any more, people like Francis *censored*uyama form Washington's State Department, declared an 'End of History' and thus 'End of the World'.
One can’t say that people liked the proliferation of nuclear arms during the Cold war or that they were fond of Soviet system, but the situation provided a possibility for alternative views. The Non-aligned Movement that, at one time, seemed a solution to ease the tension between two super-powers, is badly needed at this time in history. It would not only provide a space for alternative views, but would create the much needed second pole without the arms build up of cold war.

The following suggestions are only a draft and need to be discussed at an international platform so that the ways of implementation can be worked out:

1. FAIRER REPRESENTATION
UN belongs to all countries of the world and it must have their fair representation. The idea of Security Council with five permanent members, that leaves the remaining un-represented is not acceptable any more. A new system of representation with all members on the Security Council on a rotational basis may be the answer.

2. SECOND ASSEMBLY OF PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATION
Even if a fair representation of countries is achieved it will still be representing the opinions and interests of the governments of the time. In many cases they are not real representatives of the people of that country. As is the case with John Major’s government in Britain which does not accurately represent the views of British public, so it the case with many other governments.

There is a need for a parallel second assembly of direct representatives of the people from all over the world.

3. FUNDING STRUCTURE
The fair representation described cannot be achieved until the funding structure of the UN is redesigned. Countries such as US are seen as major funders of UN and that in turn gives them a strong clout in any decision making. It has often happened these countries have cut or held back the funding on a whim and rendered the UN helpless.

The UN needs to develop a newer, fairer funding structure through which no country feels that they are doing any favours to the world community.

3.1. Contribution of all member states should be based upon it GNP, and no member should be able change it by its own national decisions. This will insure that the rich oil producing countries also make an appropriate contribution. The power of decision making or voting should not depend upon the amount a country pays. The contribution is not a price for clout but a contribution towards a common cause.

3.2. Common Heritage, an idea, as promoted by Prof. Arvid Pardo in his lecture to the Foundation for International studies at the University of Malta on October 6, 1994, suggests that the oceans and territories beyond national boundaries and areas such as Antarctica should be treated as common heritage and should be under the control of the UN.

3.2.1. An extension of this is that minerals, sea life and energy sources used by any nation should be paid for as a royalty to the UN. All ships, aeroplanes using oceans and air space beyond their respective boundaries should pay a levy for use.
3.2.2 Once we accept that all the sea and air space beyond national territories belongs to the UN, then any use other than the civilian, such as flying or plying of war plans/ships must have advance permission from the UN. This will give the UN the power to stop conflicts and the escalation of wars.

4. TRADE LEVY: A small percentage such as 0.1% of all the international trade should go to UN.

4. 1. All arms trade across international boundaries should be levied in the region of 10% paid by the buyer and the seller to the UN. All arms create problems which later become heavy burden on UN peace keeping etc.

4.2. Another major concept needs to be brought forward that ex-colonial powers have no more right to keep territories and islands, those are geographically not part of their own countries. Some of these small islands, thousands miles away in totally different parts of the globe, are still being kept by these powers. The indigenous people of these islands has been either moved away forcibly or systematically eliminated. In other cases the population of these territories is so small and powerless that these islands have been and still are being used and abused by the stronger countries.

4.2.1. Some countries are using centuries old agreements, those were signed sometimes in innocence by the small nations. It has even happened that one colonial power signed an agreement to another power without any participation or consent of the real owners of these islands. The indigenous people of these islands has been moved away forcibly. As was the case of Diego Garcia, where 4500 indigenous population was moved away at gun point by the US, when Britain leased the islands to US.

4.2.2. Any agreements more than 50 years old should be declared null and void. All affected islands and territories should be handed back to the indigenous people and should be under the UN protection. So that the greedy ex-colonial powers can't lay their hands again on these territories.

Where there was no indigenous population or it has been lost in the process, these territories should become the property of the UN.

This way UN will have its own resources and will be empowered to act upon the decisions it makes. It will also work as umbrella for the smaller less powerful nations.

Time has come when we can not leave the future of the world in the hands of a few nations. All nations, small or big have an equal interest and equal responsibility for developing this world into a fairer place.

Avtarjeet S, Dhanjal
December 1995