UN, the new world empire

One does not have to be a historian, or for that matter any kind of expert, to understand the present global situation, although it obviously would help. Frank Richardson's letter The days of the empire are over (The Jakarta Post, Nov. 5, 2001) is predictably anti-American, and that of course is so easy to be in a world full of poverty, and one that is struggling for survival.

The UN perhaps offers some hope in acting as the world's policeman, as long as it is able to function in a manner that is not influenced by hidden agendas. There is a danger however that the UN would simply become bogged down by different opinions, such that no clear agreement would surface at times when decisions needed to be made quickly and decisively.

The world is clearly divided into ideologies, all of which consider their way as being the best -- who is right and who is wrong is of course debatable. Clearly there would be member states that were not mature enough, stable enough, or trustworthy enough to be considered as true members. This latest Afghanistan incident has clearly shown the world's divide, and also just how fragile and unstable governments are in many regions of the world. Is it possible to have an organization that is run by people who are not free from political obligations, business interests or religion in today's world? Would it be realistic to think that such an independent body could exist and freely operate without question? If it was run on true democratic principles of human rights, accountability and everything else that goes with it, would that be acceptable to all countries of the world? Would not such an organization that possessed power over all nations in fact itself become the new world "empire"?

DAVID WALLIS

Medan, North Sumatra