Dissolve the United Nations and replace it with other realistic and natural
alliances that protect humanity.
By
Suleiman Olimat, Ph.D. ([email protected])
Introduction
This vision calls for voluntary regional alliances based on geography and shared interests to provide greater stability and better governance. The world is not governed by abstract values, but by geography and interests. Neighboring countries either cooperate or disintegrate, and those who deny this reality pay the price in blood and refugees.
The world doesn’t need a “United Nations” in name only, but genuine alliances that recognize borders. Not artificial unity, nor open chaos, but a sincere management of differences that places humanity at the forefront of its concerns and prevents division from escalating into massacres.
The international system is facing structural challenges: slow decision-making, declining trust, and eroding enforcement capacity. The unipolar world model is no longer capable of accommodating a multipolar world with diverse interests.
The United Nations failed because it attempted to govern a divided world as a single moral entity, transcending geography, history, identity, and the balance of power. The veto is not a tool for balance, but a license to evade justice, and UN resolutions are often mere statements of goodwill that neither stop a war nor protect a child.
The new system is based on a fundamental principle: individual rights are non-negotiable and non-suspension able, and adherence to them is a condition for membership in any alliance, with independent judicial mechanisms in place.
No collective sovereignty, no strategic interest, and no cultural particularity justifies the violation of fundamental individual rights. This model acknowledges difference instead of denying it, constrains interests by rights instead of justifying them, and replaces formal universalism with a realistic and enforceable framework. It does not promise lasting peace, but it seeks to prevent perpetual falsehood.
The legal and institutional justifications for reconsidering the structure of the United Nations and replacing it with alternative coalition frameworks.
1- Disruption of the principle of institutional neutrality:
The structure of the Security Council is based on a historical equation resulting from the outcomes of World War II, which makes its representation not expressive of the collective will of nations, and undermines the principle of neutrality that is supposed to govern the work of the international organization.
2 –Functional paralysis resulting from the veto right:
The concentration of veto power in the hands of five permanent members has led to the disruption of international law enforcement mechanisms and the linking of concepts of justice and international peace to narrow national interests, thus rendering many international resolutions ineffective.
3– The disproportion between the legal structure and international reality:
The United Nations system is managed with legal and political tools designed for a unipolar world, while the international system is undergoing a structural shift towards multipolarity, creating a clear gap between legal texts and the actual ability to manage contemporary crises.
4–Erosion of normative legitimacy:
The perception of the United Nations as a neutral moral and legal reference point has declined among large segments of the population, in contrast to the growing view of it as a negotiating platform that reflects the balance of power more than it reflects the principles of international law.
5– Politicization of Human Rights Principles:
The human rights system has been stripped of its universal and binding character as a result of its selective use as a tool of political pressure, rather than as a fixed legal standard applied equally to all countries.
6 –Duality in application and standards:
Selective practices have led to a clear duality of standards between the declared human rights discourse and the actual implementation mechanisms, which has weakened confidence in the credibility of the international legal system.
7– Widening gap between declared commitments and practical implementation:
In light of current geopolitical transformations, the gap is deepening between the legal commitments issued by international institutions and the level of compliance and implementation on the ground, which limits the effectiveness of the existing international system.
These imbalances collectively point to the need to reassess the institutional model of the United Nations and to explore more flexible regional or multilateral coalition frameworks based on common interests and realistic commitments, without compromising the fundamental principles of international law or the essential goal of protecting human beings.
A proposal for restructuring the international system:
The United Nations, in its current form, faces a deep structural crisis that has limited its ability to achieve the humanitarian and political goals for which it was created..
The Security Council is the clearest expression of this imbalance, as the concentration of decision-making power in the hands of five permanent members with veto power has turned international justice into a hostage to narrow interests, undermined the principle of equality between states, and put the organization’s neutrality in constant question.
International decisions are made in the name of humanity and international law, but their application is selective, which has deprived them of their binding nature and turned values and human rights into political tools that are invoked when they are in line with interests, and suspended when they conflict with them.This approach has contributed to deepening the gap between official rhetoric and reality on the ground, and has weakened the confidence of both peoples and states in the effectiveness of the existing international structure.
In a multipolar world, this model is no longer capable of responding to geopolitical shifts or managing conflicts fairly and effectively. Therefore, reforming the international system cannot be limited to cosmetic adjustments or partial repairs,
rather, it requires a comprehensive restructuring based on realistic, voluntary, multilateral alliances, grounded in common interests and a genuine commitment to implementation.
The aim of this proposal is not to undermine the international system or to call for chaos, but rather to seek to build a more honest and just framework that prevents the monopolization of international power, ensures the implementation of decisions without being subject to the will of a single power, and restores the human being as the ultimate goal of any global system, not just a slogan in final statements.
First: Geographical Alliances
Proximity is not a diplomatic proposal, but a compelling reality. It is not an item to be voted on, nor a slogan to be displayed in a UN hall. Spatial proximity, intertwined resources, and overlapping security and environmental concerns necessitate pragmatic cooperation that cannot be managed by transcontinental conferences or platforms far removed from the theater of danger. Geography does not negotiate, does not wait for consensus, and does not recognize rhetoric.
Those who breathe the same air, drink the same water, and live amidst the same fissures cannot afford the luxury of deferred enmity. Prolonged hostility in shared geography is not a principle, but rather a slow suicide. Geography compels cooperation, and interests hold it back from collapse. Alliances built on good intentions, however, are the first to crumble at the first sign of crisis.
A true alliance is not based on values articulated in statements, but on shared security, shared risks, and borders open to the same catastrophe. Those who share concerns about drought, energy, trade, climate, migration, and security chaos must either genuinely ally with one another or pay the price in blood, displacement, and a delayed collapse.
The rationale: Neighboring countries do not experience crises in the same way; rather, they are forced to share them and suffer the consequences together, whether they like it or not.
1- Middle Eastern Union
2- African Union
3- Union of the Americas
4- Eurasian Union
5- East Asian Union
Second: Civilizational/Cultural/Ethnic Alliances
Any political project that invokes the idea of ”purity” is inherently violent, no matter how it adorns itself with euphemisms or employs the lexicon of identity. Purity is a political illusion, and violence cannot be negated by linguistic embellishment.
Culture is not blood, lineage, or inherited privilege, but rather a historical language of understanding, capable of evolution and interaction.
Those who fear diversity are not defending their identity, but rather declaring their inability to face the future. Identities that cannot tolerate difference are doomed to either stagnation or implosion.
Culture is not presented here as a basis for discrimination or a tool for moral categorization among people, but rather as a practical framework for facilitating understanding and formulating shared rules for managing interests and conflicts.
Therefore, any notion based on civilizational superiority or racial purity is explicitly rejected, as these are merely ideological masks for domination.
These alliances are not racist in the biological sense, but neither are they innocent or idealistic; they are modern civilizational alliances that acknowledge reality rather than deny it.
Culture is not a basis for purity, nor a pretext for exclusion, nor a justification for collective superiority, but rather a tool for the rational organization of difference.
There are no pure alliances, nor closed identities without a price. Diversity within an alliance is not an existential threat, but a condition for stability. And identity is not understood as blood or origin, but as a language of shared values that is open to negotiation and modernization.
The political rationale: Shared values do not create virtue, but they create clearer rules of the game, reduce internal conflict, and prevent cultural differences from turning into zero-sum conflict.
Examples of potential civilizational alliances:
1- Islamic civilizational alliance
2- Confucian-Asian alliance
3- Western-liberal alliance
4- Latin American alliance
5- African cultural alliance
Third: The Structure of the New System
- Establishing a global coordinating council as an alternative to the United Nations, comprising representatives from each alliance, without any absolute veto power.
- Sovereignty rests with the alliance, not with individual states, in major issues such as war, climate, and the global economy.
- Conflicts are managed regionally first and are only internationalized if regional solutions fail.
Fourth: Potential Advantages
1- Reducing global political hypocrisy through greater transparency in decision-making.
2-Making faster and more realistic decisions that directly reflect the interests of peoples and regions.
3 -Ending the monopoly of “morality” by a single power and creating a space for multiple voices.
4- Reducing cross-identity conflicts, thereby enhancing the stability of local and regional communities.
Fifth: Potential risks
This vision is not without risks, but the essential difference is that it acknowledges them and manages them transparently, instead of hiding them behind empty global slogans.
1-The possibility of using the concept of “interest” to marginalize values or justify dominance within alliances.
2- The potential failure of rights protection if it is not supported by independent and robust enforcement mechanisms.
3- Multiple alliances could lead to a world of competing blocs, with the potential dominance of major powers within a single alliance.
4- The risk of cultural isolation and the potential persecution of minorities within alliances.
5-The entrenchment of bloc logic instead of a world of values, and the opening of the door to an arms race between alliances.
Individual rights are paramount
Human beings are not a means to the stability of the alliance, but its very purpose.
Fundamental rights—life, dignity, freedom, and legal protection—are inviolable red lines. Any alliance that violates them immediately loses its legitimacy. Therefore: a binding charter of rights, automatic sanctions, and the right of individual withdrawal.
The Framework Constitution for a System of Realistic Alliances
This proposed text is not an ideal constitution, but a practical framework for international political life; it does not sanctify alliances, nor does it empty rights of their meaning.
Article 1: The Nature of the System
The international system is based on voluntary regional alliances, established on the basis of geography and shared interests, not on the basis of race or ethnic purity. These alliances adhere to the fundamental standards of individual rights and form bridges for practical and sustainable cooperation between peoples and states.
Article (2): The Principle of Affiliation
Joining any alliance is a sovereign right of states, conditional on full commitment to the Charter of Individual Rights, which is the basic pillar of this system, and a guarantee of respect for human dignity and freedoms.
Article (3): Culture and Identity
Shared culture serves as a means of understanding and coordination, without being exploited as a basis for exclusion, discrimination, or the assertion of collective superiority. Cultural diversity is considered an asset that strengthens the unity of the system, not weakens it.
Article (4): Individual Rights
Fundamental individual rights shall be protected without restriction or condition, foremost among them the right to life, dignity, freedom of conscience, and equal legal protection. These rights may not be suspended or infringed upon under any circumstances.
Article (5): The priority of individual rights
Individual rights take precedence over the sovereignty of states and alliances; any serious violation of them is considered a direct loss of legitimacy, and obliges all concerned parties to take the necessary corrective measures.
Article (6): Protection Mechanisms
An independent, cross-partisan judicial body shall be established, with jurisdiction to adjudicate cases of serious violations of individual rights. Its rulings shall be applied in accordance with the highest standards of justice and transparency, ensuring respect for the law and human dignity.
Article (7): Conflict Management
Conflicts are addressed within the regional alliance first, and no conflict is referred to the higher coordination level until all available regional means have been exhausted. This approach is a guarantee of realistic and effective resolution.
Article 8: Use of Force
The use of force is prohibited except in self-defense or to protect individual rights urgently, and must be based on a collective decision subject to international legal accountability. This principle aims to prevent exploitation and aggression under any pretext.
Article (9): Withdrawal and Sanctions
States retain the right to withdraw from any alliance in accordance with organized and clear procedures. An automatic and proportionate sanctions regime shall be imposed on any party that is proven to have committed a serious violation of this Constitution, in order to maintain discipline and adherence to the system.
Article (10): Developability
This constitution is a flexible framework that is reviewed periodically, in keeping with geographical, political and human changes, while preserving the essence of individual rights and their supreme status, to ensure the continuity of justice and effectiveness in managing alliances.
**
No alliance without shared interests, no politics of race or purity, and culture for understanding, not exclusion. The individual is protected, and fundamental rights are non-negotiable. Conflicts are resolved first and foremost among those involved, with force being the last resort. Those who violate rights are legally isolated, justice is not left to the whims of politics, and rights are not reduced to mere statements of condemnation. Human dignity is paramount.
.