And just like a family, it finds it hard to actually agree on anything and get things done. In some respects, it has to be this way, or the governments of invidual governments wouldn't have true sovereignty over their own selves if they weren't able to 'opt in/out' of things.

If it ever looked like we were on the brink of another world war, I seriously doubt the UN would be able to prevent it's outbreak.

An excellent article - thank you Christina MacPherson

Yes, the anti-UN media attitude is very intriguing, I suspect it has a lot more to do with the philosophies of the media owners than anything to do with an objective critique of the UN’s performance.

We now have globalization as a functioning economic reality. With global function you need global governance to prevent the abuse of that system but such governance is lacking and the system is being abused, eg the exploitation of cheap 3rd World labour to produce expensive 1st World products.

The UN is our best chance of a reasonable global governing body – I know it has severe problems, particularly its record with Arab countries and the eternal stumbling block of the veto powers however it could still be reconstituted with a more appropriate structure.

I think that the magnates of the 1st World simply don’t like the prospect of including the members of the 3rd World into their ‘Family of Man’ because they rather like the results of their exploitation of them.

There is no family of man and never will be.

A family is made up of people who are offspring of the parent cells the Mother and Father who are destined to get old and die. The only way cells have any hope of immortality here on earth is if their cellular offspring can survive through the coming generations.

The parent cells prefer the survival of a close bloodline like their children, their extended families and through recent generational intermarriage their tribe. This gives them the greatest chance of genetic immortality here on earth.

They say we are all genetically linked to Africa thousands of years ago. This will not stop man from waging war against those who do not have more recent cellular and genetic connection as the distant link is too remote except in the case of black and white where it is plainly obvious to even the biggest dill that the cellular, family links to Africa are closer to Black Americans than white Americans.

Thats why black and white cant see each other as brothers because they recognise instantly where the closer cellular links are.

While mankind is hellbent on ensuring the survival of those closest to him at the cellular biological level he will never recognise others as his family or treat them as such if a choice ever has to be made between the survival of the two.

To think other wise is just wishing it could be so but it isnt.

"clashes of culture cause conflict"

If by conflict you mean war and suicide bombing etc.;
Then I believe it's not clashes of culture that cause war but clashes of bloodline. The culture is a signal of cellular or family origins.

Sharfin, where do you stand on the existence of the United Nations?
Given the posturing of the elite, there are people there that work for the ideals of the UN, would trashing the efforts further your agenda?
Given the article speaks to the enormity of the task, I'm glad it exists. I just wish for a more appropriate secretary general. Coffy Anann {excuse spelling} is already sorely missed.
fluff