I've been giving a little (but not much more than that) thought to what comes after the UN, once we give them their walking papers and boot them to Brussels, or Paris, or Lagos.

What we need is an organization of United Free Nations, and this one will have real admission criteria. There's only one country in the Middle East that would currently qualify (guess which one), though in a few weeks, we may have another one, and much of Africa would be out in the cold. As would China.

France would be allowed in, but if it had a security council, they certainly wouldn't be on it.

Anyway, I was just doing a little search, and ran across this piece by Barry Farber from a couple years back.

I also found a reference to the concept in a comment to this post last fall by Charles Johnson.

Here's one more from the International Journal of Social Economics, in 1999.

So, I think it's time to give this some serious thought.

Comments, anyone?

It's amusing to see, as the end draws nigh, just how hysterical the supporters of the status quo can become. It used to be that the radical left wanted to destroy any and everything and start over. Now they are desperate to keep everything in place. Could it be that they have become defensive about keeping their ill-gotten gains? What ever happened to "the times, they are a-changin'."

At some point you have to admit to yourself that it's so broken or rusted or tattered that it's not worth fixing. That it's better to throw it out and get something new. As a side effect, you get the latest and greatest technologies and leave the inefficiency of the past behind. That applies to clothing, appliances, computers, cars, and international organizations.

And perhaps space agencies as well...

No matter where the UN ends up, having delegates from (almost) every country in one place can be handy in a crisis. If America insists on leaving the UN as the UN leaves America, a kind of hotline between the White House and the Chinese Politburo like that to the Kreml during the Cold war (or does it still exist?) might not be a bad idea.

I write "might" because this also could be seen as increasing China's status.

> Don't tell me it would be a tough job being
> admissions director of the U.F.N.

OK, then let me just ask you this: would you let France in? How about Germany?

Yes, both France and Germany could join. But they wouldn't be on its equivalent of a Security Council.

> No matter where the UN ends up, having delegates from (almost) every country in one place can be handy in a crisis.

Feel free to describe a crisis where it would actually make a difference.

I note that the US is able to call China direct and the Chinese have an embassy in DC.

The idea is even older than that - Gene Roddenberry called it, "The Federation"

I think the UN should stay, but the US should push for Permanent seats on the Security Council for both Japan and India. This would not only make us popular in those countries but would ensure gridlock in the Security Council so that it could effectively be ignored as it was in during the Cold War.