Wretchard has some interesting thoughts on what one might look like.

As he notes, the current organization is a corrupt relic of events of six decades past, and badly in need of a total restructuring. In its current form, it's not just useless, it's counterproductive to its stated ends.

The corruption must be expunged completely and future allegations or rumors of corruption should be investigated as they arise, not years later.

Within the UN many people have long believed other structural reforms are necessary - the structure of the Security Council being one example. Japan's entry into this group I think would be a positive thing.

Finally, my own personal opinion is that people need to be realistic about what the UN is. It's a consensus organisation which can only act through member states, which often are fickle. In situations where decisive action is necessary I think the public should look to individual member states, and likewise the UN should give greater latitude for individual member states to take unilateral action.

The UN is commonly dismissed as just a talk shop, and it's understandable because communication is not a recognizable end product. Good communication is a necessary ingredient of peace, the real end product, but people tend only to notice and react to war.

When all is said and done a world forum like the UN makes communication easier and more effective through the everyday interactions of a global community of diplomats in a small space, and in this way I think it has played a role in preserving civilization througout a half century of unprecedented danger. Those dangers are still with us, and we cannot hope to be so fortunate indefinitely.