EN ES

**Part 1: Intro**

This petition proposes a significant move—radical reform—away from the status quo in the United Nations and its Security Council. This is for their numerous extremely serious life-destroying failures, which include the following:

    • Failure to prevent or stop Russia’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine, which has involved numerous war crimes (including massacres of civilians, rape and torture of women and children, and abduction and deportation of children) and has also had strong repercussions for both the global economy (grain, energy, inflation, etc.) and the environment (forests burnt down, extensive pollution and contamination, etc.). A large number of animals, including pets, have also been victims of Russian military aggression in Ukraine.

    • Failure to resolve major conflicts, such as Israel vs. the Palestinians, over many decades.

    • Failure, through the WHO, to prevent COVID-19 turning into a deadly global pandemic. For example, they were too slow to declare COVID-19 as a pandemic, and too keen to pander to China, even praising the Chinese leadership early on for its “transparency”.

    • Failure to adequately care for our planet and its inhabitants; for example, they have allowed climate change to spiral out of control to the point where our own species, Homo sapiens, is in jeopardy.

Besides their failures, the U.N. doesn’t lack distinctly unsavory attributes, or defects, of which you can find half a dozen listed in the appendix at the end of this Part 1.

Some key points of this petition:

    • The unjust, autocratic and self-serving vetoes and permanent memberships in the Security Council would be abolished, with more subtle and flexible mechanisms introduced to compensate.

    • There would be a significant improvement to the way conflicts or disputes between nations or territories are resolved, especially so they’re not taking decades to resolve.

    • Human rights would be respected and prioritized.

    • Anti-corruption mechanisms would be introduced.

    • Nations would be incentivized to act responsibly, for example, on the climate change and biodiversity fronts.

    • The U.N. headquarters would no longer be fixed at New York. Another location would be selected every four years or so from elsewhere in the world, to show that this is an organization for serving all humanity, rather than being the pet patronizing project of just one nation.

In the end, this petition boils down to making a choice between two options:

    1. You can back the status quo continuing indefinitely in the U.N. and its Security Council by declining to sign the petition.
    This maybe sounds like a safe and conservative option which you may reason as “Let them get on with it! They’re professionals and so know what they’re doing”. However, when reading Part 2 below, it’s worth reflecting with “How ‘safe’ is this in reality?” and “Does the evidence show that they, as an organization, in fact know what they’re doing?!”.

    2. You can support a radical reform there as soon as possible by signing.
    This “radical” option may sound risky or even extreme to you. While no change is risk-free, remember that the status-quo option is not exactly without risks either! It’s worth weighing up, while reading Part 2 below, whether we—humanity and life on this planet—would likely be better off and safer with a radically reformed UN, and whether the radical reform being proposed really is that “extreme”, especially in comparision with the world having to suffer the increasingly extreme and dangerous events of continuing along this destructive status-quo timeline.

That concludes Part 1. If you can’t spare the time to read the more in-depth Part 2 (estimates near the start of Part 2, which is just below the upcoming appendix) or—Heaven forbid!—you abandon it, that’s fine; however, I’d be obliged in that case if you’d consider making a (to sign or not) decision based on what you’ve read here and what you may already know about the UN and its “Security” Council.

~ APPENDIX: SIX UNSAVORY ATTRIBUTES OF THE U.N. ~

Here are six unsavory attributes, or defects, of the U.N., intended to give you a better idea—or at least a reminder—as to what is so wrong with this organization:

    1. Appeasing. For example, not only allowing Russia to keep their right to veto and permanent seat in the Security Council, despite outrageously not fulfilling their obligations under the UN Charter as a peace-loving nation, but even allowing them to enjoy the presidency there in April 2023. One could go as far as to say this makes them complicit in Russia’s war crimes, although they would most likely hide behind the Charter rules—a form of saying “We are just obeying orders!”—as the foundation of their defence (you could help us to chip away at that foundation by backing radical reform here).

    2. Blame-deflecting. The UN isn’t slow to blame—via various forms of condemning—others; for example, nations and their leaders are blamed as wars or conflicts continue, and fossil-fuel companies for being responsible for climate change. While that is justifiable to a certain degree, I suggest you consider, as you read this petition, whether the UN could and should have done much more, such as radically reforming itself to better meet such challenges rather than just passively accepting the existing Charter rules as their inviolable Ten Commandments, which severely limit their ability to deal with these monumental challenges effectively.

    3. Corrupt. Corrupt UN officials have accepted kickbacks, solicited bribes, etc. (The oil-for-food relief program in Iraq being a well-known example). UN funds have also mysteriously “disappeared”. Worst of all, UN peacekeepers have been involved in sex abuse cases, including of children.
    Another type of corruption at the UN is between nations, for example, the buying of votes in the General Assembly to try and get a place on the Security Council.

    4. Dysfunctional. The UN has often been unable to resolve major conflicts or even send in humanitarian aid, as the flawed system of vetoes and permanent memberships of the Security Council gives priority to a veto-wielding nation—who may well be a malevolent party to that conflict—over the combined wishes of the rest of the “United” Nations.

    5. Hypocritical. For example, the UN has been blaming others and preaching “Act Now!” on climate change while not themselves acting (e.g., allowing hundreds of fossil-fuel company delegates to lobby in UN climate change conferences). Also, while the UN calls for other institutions to undergo “deep, structural” reforms, when it comes to significant change at the UN and its Security Council, we have a paltry 2-day conference “Summit of the Future” to look forward to on 22-23 Sep 2024, which, if we are lucky, will result in smiles, handshakes, and an agreement to hold more talks in the future!

    6. Wolf in sheep’s clothing. Their economy with the truth (especially being slow to take responsibility for their failures); their time-tested formula of warning, urging and condemning (which allows them to deflect the blame for their failures and appear, sanctimoniously, on a par with the religious leaders); and, finally, their kick-the-can-down-the-road strategy on serious UN reform; all lead us to the suspicion that their real, hidden, top priority (such as keeping their cherished U.N. gravy train firmly on track—$$$$$$!) isn’t quite as noble as they would like us all to believe!

**Part 2: Main**

~ PREFACE ~

“I’ve realized a new reason why pessimism sounds smart: optimism often requires believing in unknown, unspecified future breakthroughs—which seems fanciful and naive. If you very soberly, wisely, prudently stick to the known and the proven, you will necessarily be pessimistic.”—Jason Crawford

“The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today.”—Franklin D. Roosevelt

It’s fair to say that this Part 2 is quite long and, occasionally, a little challenging; I estimate it will take you 15-25 minutes to read Part 2 proper, plus another 15-25 minutes if you read all of the optional appendices. However, the subject, the United Nations, is one that profoundly affects the lives and futures of all: human beings (in other words, everybody!), flora (all plants: trees, flowering plants, algae, etc.) and fauna (all animals great and small!) on this fragile, volatile and much-abused-by-humanity planet called Earth, so, on the assumption that one or more of the aforementioned categories of beings matter enough to you for you to be willing to spend the time, you will want to:

    • persevere!

    • not abandon reading it if you come across something(s) you don’t agree with (it isn’t necessary to agree with every single point to be able to sign this petition);

    • read it with an open, optimistic frame of mind;

    • refrain from passing judgment until you have read all sections up to and including: “5. CONCLUSION”.

Part 2 consists of numbered sections, 1-5, of recommended reading (but if you find yourself running short of time or patience, feel free to skim through or skip to the next section or subsection); five YouTube videos; and lettered appendices, A-M, containing supplementary material which may be of interest. The appendices are located in a separate Google Docs document, which you can access by clicking on Part 2’s various “Appendix …” hyperlinks (in case of problems, try downloading PDF file instead, and view on a computer if you can).

There are some areas of Part 2 which are a little bit technical (aimed at computer geeks) or mathematical in nature, but it isn’t necessary you understand them to be able to sign this petition.

For your reference, here is a list of acronyms with special meanings in Part 2:

ACVW = Anti-Corruption Vote Weighting
DNO (suggest pronounced Dee-No) = Decent Nations Organization
DVW = Decency Vote Weighting
OVW = Overall Vote Weighting
PVW = Population Vote Weighting

For your convenience, this list is replicated in Appendix L: Acronyms

~ SUMMARY ~

Here is a guide to the main sections of Part 2:

1. INTRODUCTION. Explains what this petition is about (the U.N.) and lists some of its dire failures (some ongoing), which this petition seeks to remedy via radical UN reform. Concludes with an elaboration of the prophecies of the petition title and image.

2. THE DECENT NATIONS ORGANIZATION. Describes a possible replacement (DNO) to the UN. Consists of five sub-sections:

    2.a  Introduction. Introduction to the DNO, and an indication of what a nation should commit to in order to join.

    2.b  DNO decency values. Introduction to the “decency” values of the DNO, with seven examples given.

    2.c  DNO vote weighting. Explanation of the vote-weighting system of the DNO.

    2.d  Plan A/B committees. Explanation of the DNO’s approach to the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

    2.e  DNO miscellaneous. Miscellaneous aspects of the DNO not already covered.

Links to appendices A-I, which endeavor to clarify/amplify various aspects of the DNO, are found here.

3. THE SUMMIT. Describes a month-long summit of UN nations and selected organizations for setting up a radically reformed UN, with the DNO proposal of this petition a possible base or starting point.

4. WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON’T REFORM THE U.N.? Tries to encourage you to consider the effects of not radically reforming the UN, with a special emphasis on climate change. The five YouTube videos are all here (viewing optional!).

5. CONCLUSION. Contains closing arguments in a last-ditch attempt to win your support for helping to avoid an absolute catastrophe right here, on planet Earth!

~ 1. INTRODUCTION ~

This is about the United Nations (the U.N./UN). The system and structure of the U.N. (including its Security Council), which was established shortly after the Second World War by the victorious powers, is no longer fit for purpose. Russia, a country whose leader, Vladmir Putin, has ordered the illegal and barbaric invasion of Ukraine, enjoys “Permanent Member State” status and “right to veto” in the Security Council, which is a clear conflict of interest in the current situation.

To be fair, all the Security Council permanent members with power of veto have been guilty of numerous atrocities in the UN era; I will give one example for each of these:

    • United States. US Army personnel were responsible for the massacre of hundreds of civilians in the My Lai massacre in Vietnam in 1968.

    • United Kingdom. British soldiers were responsible for the massacre of unarmed civilians during a protest march in Northern Ireland on Bloody Sunday in 1972.
  
    • China. The crackdown on protesters ordered by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989 resulted in a death toll in the order of hundreds or possibly thousands.

    • France. Their military was likely responsible for the death of 19 civilians in the Mali wedding airstrike of 2021.

    • Russia. Their armed forces were responsible for the mass murder of Ukrainian civilians and prisoners of war in the Bucha massacre of 2022.
 
All this is a symptom of something bad with the structure of the UN, but there have been many other failures caused by the bad structure of this organization. For example, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been going on for many decades. Likewise the disputes of United Kingdom vs. Argentina (for the Falkland Islands/“las Islas Malvinas”) and the People’s Republic of China vs the Republic of China (Taiwan) are still unresolved after several decades.

Their failures aren’t just limited to a poor record of resolving conflicts either: both the deadly COVID-19 pandemic and the life, species and civilization threatening climate and ecological emergencies have happened / are happening on their watch, despite their commendable efforts to document excess deaths with the former and preach to everybody about the latter.

Finally, inaction or inadequate action by the UN in the face of genocides, including those of Cambodia “The Killing Fields”, Rwanda and Darfur should also be added to the list of their failures.

I apologize for the numerous wars, invasions, conflicts, genocides and atrocities in the UN era I have omitted to mention here.

To be fair, in the UN as a whole, there have been notable successes over the decades; for example, take a look at “Would the World Be Better Without the UN?”. This is why this is a petition for radical reform of the UN, not abolishing it as some people advocate.

However, if the UN—and especially its “Security” Council—is left to its own devices, not only can we expect more of their failures, but quite possibly on a scale which could materialize the prophetic warnings:

    … the WORLD in DANGER!

    … before they veto us to oblivion!

of this petition’s title/image into a new reality that is truly terrifying and, ultimately, tremendously sad, for all the lives that could be lost, and all the species that could go extinct, including, possibly, human beings: we are an adaptable species for sure, but it would be a great mistake to believe we are invincible! Here are five elements which could interact and combine to put us on the same road to oblivion as the unfortunate dinosaurs and the dodo, victim of humanity:

    1. Wars: conventional and/or nuclear.

    2. Fatal diseases: including contagious (viruses, plague etc.) or from the environment (contaminated water, pollution, radioactive fallout, mosquito plagues, etc.).

    3. Climate change / habitat loss: is resulting in very many harmful effects for people’s lives and the environment, not least of which is the (already started) sixth mass extinction, which when combined with rising sea levels and extreme, life-threatening weather events (droughts, floods, heatwaves, hurricanes, wildfires, etc.) becoming ever more frequent and/or severe, could lead to aftermath fatalities, serious problems with the global supply of food and water, vast areas of the planet becoming uninhabitable and, in short, the breakdown of civilization as we know it.

    4. Human nature: Greed, apathy and denialism (the first prioritizing personal wealth, corporate profits or national territorial gains above all else [such as the environment, the lives of people and animals, and, ultimately, the survival of our species], the last two resulting in resistance to necessary changes for human civilization to adapt in time) could all be factors contributing to our road to perdition.

    5. Human error / cutting corners / accidents: may well result in “Noah’s ark” type solutions (for example, biodome sanctuaries, or perhaps a space mission to set up a base on Mars) for the last surviving “lucky” human beings ending in disaster.

To sum up, given the U.N.’s track record of serious failures over decades, and the current trajectory we are all on—using the Titanic as an analogy, it is as if we (humanity) have reached the stage of our voyage where that iceberg is in plain sight, and our ship (the Earth’s environment: inhabitable land, hospitable climate, ecosystems etc.) may prove to be not as unsinkable (indestructible) as we have been assured!—a major course correction is urgently required: in U.N. terms that means comprehensive, restructuring and radical reform.

~ 2. THE DECENT NATIONS ORGANIZATION ~

~ 2.a  Introduction ~

It is likely that there are many possible solutions which could improve the U.N.’s diabolical structure; one such possibility is presented here:

If a new organization, called the Decent Nations Organization (DNO henceforth), were to be established, and this organization is given responsibility for resolving matters such as border disputes between countries, that would be a good start.

In order to be a member of this organization, a country/territory should commit to some standards of decent behavior. Three examples:

    1. It should commit to resolve disputes with other countries/territories through dialogue, instead of invading, “special military operations”, launching missiles, committing terrorist atrocities, etc.

    2. In order to help protect the planet it should also respect international agreements relating to climate change or biodiversity such as the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

    3. Respect for fundamental human rights, such as freedom and equality for the following groups of people: women, people from ethnic minorities, indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, and people who self-identify as LGBT+, should also be included as a commitment of a country that wants to be part of the new DNO. (Check out Appendix A for more details)

~ 2.b  DNO decency values ~

The countries of the DNO could vote for the precise conditions which are to be considered “decent”. Seven examples:

    1. If a country doesn’t permit a free and uncensored media, it is probable that they wish to brainwash their own population in order to be able to do such things as:

    • Cover up terrible acts (such as the current atrocities of Russia in Ukraine) or even dramatize them with an alternative reality.

    • Pursue dogmatic policies (such as the view of China’s leadership that Taiwan belongs incontrovertibly to them).

    • Cover up the events/circumstances of a virus outbreak (such as happened with COVID-19 in its early stages).

in all these cases without stirring up too much discontent from their own citizens. A country suppressing their own media in this way should have points subtracted from their Decency Vote Weighting (DVW hereafter—read on for more details) to discourage this behavior.

    2. If a country possesses nuclear weapons, this should result in points being subtracted from their DVW to discourage the behavior that could someday lead to the horrific event of a nuclear war, holocaust or apocalypse. Note the contrast with the current structure of the UN, where of the five permanent members of the Security Council with vetoes, all possess nuclear weapons, thereby sending the message “to be important on the world stage, get nukes!”.

    3. A developed country doing its part on the Fair trade front (i.e. with developing nations) could have points added to their DVW to reward this behavior.

    4. A developed country doing its fair share of support for infrastructure/climate projects—environment-friendly or mitigating the effects of climate change as far as possible—in developing countries could again have points added to their DVW.

    5. A country successfully reducing their dependence on fossil fuels / their CO₂ emissions could have points added to their DVW, whereas a country that increases its dependence/emissions should have points subtracted.

    6. A country doing a good job in protecting and preserving its natural habitats (for example, the rainforests), important for the following reasons, among others:

    • The survival of many species, including the bees, which are of vital importance to the food-chain.

    • Photosynthesis, a means nature provides for absorbing the greenhouse gas CO₂ from the atmosphere and maintaining the oxygen balance. In other words, a natural brake against run-away climate change, unfortunately a process already underway (more on this later).

could have points added to their DVW, whereas a country doing little or nothing to prevent their erosion through man-made activities should have points subtracted.

    7. A country doing its fair share of collaboration on cross-border policing operations—helping to bring criminals, mafias and terrorist groups to justice—could have points added to their DVW.

It would be worthwhile to consider votes by the DNO Assembly to decide the above and other conditions which may be good or bad indicators of “decency”.

~ 2.c  DNO vote weighting ~

As some countries have a much greater population than others, it is worth considering assigning a Population Vote Weighting (PVW from now on), between 1 and 22 on a logarithmic scale to base 2 (see Appendix B). There should also be an Anti-Corruption Vote Weighting (ACVW hereafter), I suggest on a scale of 1 to 10, depending on how clean/free of corruption a country is perceived to be by international monitoring organizations. Finally, there should be a Decency Vote Weighting (DVW), I suggest on a scale of 1 to 10, corresponding to conformance of a country to the decency values of the DNO (some countries may conform well in some aspects, but not others). These factors could be reviewed annually, as a country improves/deteriorates in its decency and anti-corruption behaviors, and as its population size shrinks or grows.

An Overall Vote Weighting (OVW henceforth) would be calculated by multiplying together the aforementioned vote weightings for population, anti-corruption and decency. This OVW could then be used directly in votes in the DNO Assembly.

Whilst I envisage one nation, one vote within the DNO Security Council as happens now in the UN Security Council, the OVW would be used to affect both the probability of a nation being selected to serve there and the duration of time spent there, or, in other words, the greater the OVW a given country possesses, the greater the chances of them being selected to replace a member of the DNO Security Council whose term has come to an end, and the greater the period of time they would get to spend there. (Inspect Appendix C for more details of member selection.)

~ 2.d  Plan A/B committees ~

In order to peacefully resolve a conflict, a committee of experts would be set up, primarily composed of individuals with no known bias from neutral countries, but with representatives from the countries/territories (parties hereafter) involved in the conflict also invited to participate. The committee would have a strict limit of time, I suggest two years, to produce two plans: Plan A and Plan B. Plan A must be signed by authorized representatives of all the parties involved. In case this is not possible (one or more of the parties don’t want to sign), Plan B, which wouldn’t require the signatures of the parties involved in the conflict, should be considered by the Assembly of the new DNO.

Committees set up to resolve disputes should look for a just solution which takes into account the basic desires of the parties involved, the wishes of any inhabitants (i.e. self-determination) and also historic and geographic factors. For Plan B, it may be that the solution is not acceptable for one or more of the parties, but it is considered just, an improvement on the current situation, and with a good chance of peace in the long term.

I suggest that a plan (A or B) should receive at least two-thirds of the votes cast by the Assembly of the DNO before being approved.

For an indication of how this Plan A/B committee approach could apply to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, scrutinize Appendix D.

~ 2.e  DNO miscellaneous ~

Unlike the UN Security Council, there wouldn’t be any exclusive privileges for selected nations, such as “right to veto” or “Permanent Member State” status, in the DNO Security Council.

Just as the United Nations inherited some organizations and agencies from the League of Nations which preceded it, the new DNO would inherit organizations and agencies from the existing UN.

The possibility of suspending or expelling a country/territory from the DNO should be there, but only used as a last resort for a country, which like Russia in Ukraine at the present time, is not even remotely attempting to meet its obligations as a decent member of the DNO.

For details of the DNO and military interventions, consider Appendix E.

For details of the DNO and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), scan Appendix F.

For details of the DNO and Eurovision-style split-voting, take a look at Appendix G.

For details of the DNO and fraud/corruption/cheating attempts, check out Appendix H.

For details of funding of the DNO budget, see Appendix I.

Rotation of DNO headquarters, every four years or so, could be based on the scheme for selection of Security Council members that you may have already seen in Appendix C, rotating among the regions defined there and with the selected nation free to choose the host city in the manner that they see fit.

~ 3. THE SUMMIT ~

To set this up, I propose there should be a U.N.-supervised reform summit of around one month duration, with invitees to include:

    • Existing members (i.e. nations) of the UN.

    • Nation-blocks, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the African Union (AU), the European Union (EU) and the Organization of American States (OAS).

    • Selected global environmental organizations, such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, to help represent the interests of this planet against the wrecking ball of mankind’s harmful activities.

Nations or nation-blocks would be able to put forward their own proposals for radical reform of the UN, and possibly incorporating some of the suggestions in this petition, or at least honoring the core elements:

    • Abolish the “Permanent Member State” status and “right to veto” for select nations of the Security Council, which are unjust, autocratic and self-serving; encourage an attitude of arrogance and/or complacency; and, finally, grant a degree of impunity to the privileged few.

    • Improve substantially the mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of conflicts, so we are no longer seeing conflicts unresolved after several decades.

    • Introduce specific, concrete mechanisms to tackle corruption, both in the (reformed) UN organization itself, and between nations.

    • Introduce solid mechanisms to incentivize good and penalize bad nation behavior at the following levels: national (e.g., for respecting the human rights of minority groups), international (e.g., for seeking to resolve territorial disputes peacefully) and global (e.g., for reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses).

    • Come up with a scheme for rotating the headquarters of the reformed UN to be in a different location in the world every four years or so. This could help break the pattern of complacency, corruption and failure that seems to have taken hold at the New York site, as well as emphasizing the reformed organization as one for serving all humanity rather than being one nation’s pet patronizing project.

Other summit participants would be able to vote on the proposals, or suggest amendments to existing proposals. The aim should be to come up with a UN radical reform plan that is sufficiently attractive to be approved by the following groups:

    • A decent majority of the world’s nations (I suggest at least two thirds).

    • Decent majorities of the world’s top 10 military powers and top 10 economic powers (I suggest at least 7 in each category) to give the proposed reformed organization some clout, especially in resolving conflicts. In the online lists of top 10 military powers, you will likely find Russia; for obvious reasons, Ukraine should instead be consulted when getting the UN reform plan approved.

    • A minimum number of environmental organizations present at the summit (I suggest at least 2) in order to get some Earth-friendly mechanisms built into the structure of the proposed reformed organization!

In case you are wondering “What happens if the reform plan is simply vetoed by one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council?”, the answer is that a new organization would need to be created, just like the United Nations was created to replace the League of Nations which preceded it. The name for this new organization could even be “the Decent Nations Organization”.

~ 4. WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON’T REFORM THE U.N.? ~

The conferences, warnings, urgings and campaigning of the U.N., climate scientists and activists unfortunately hasn’t been enough up until now to stop us, humanity, getting into a very precarious position with respect to climate change and loss of habitat and biodiversity, and while some individuals will undoubtedly respond by changing their lifestyle, human nature being what it is—with many resisting changes—that alone will likely not be enough to stop this precarious position worsening, with severe, irreversible consequences. That is why this petition recommends radical, restructuring reform of the UN, so that nations and their governments can be incentivized by the reformed structure to do the right thing, such as the following:

    • Changing their energy and transport policies to reduce CO₂ and other greenhouse-gas emissions.

    • Incentivizing local government / states to act in a climate- and ecologically-friendly manner. The amount of funding they receive from central/federal government should depend, at least in part, on an assessment of their effort and performance in this regard.

    • Encouraging (via regulation, accountability, taxes, tax breaks etc.) corporations and companies to act honestly, transparently, responsibly, and in a climate- and ecologically-friendly manner. Some industries need special attention:
    The fossil-fuel industry. This has to be seen as a sunset industry, with a schedule needed for phasing it out that is not too relaxed. Further attempts by this industry to pull the wool over people’s eyes, for example, with dubious carbon-offset schemes, need to be firmly resisted!
    The travel industry. This changed significantly over the course of the 20th century, to the point where travel to worldwide destinations has become a realistic possibility for many. Just as the pioneering breakthroughs of the last century made that possible, more pioneering breakthroughs will be needed in this century to adapt to a world without fossil fuels. It would seem fair to reward such pioneering breakthroughs, wherever in the world they occur.
    The media industry. The media should be protected from direct governmental interference in their editorial (a.k.a. censorship!), except for a limited set of issues considered harmful to humanity, such as when they publish articles which incite race hatred or violence or promote climate change denial. The media also includes social media, whose owners should take measures to counter the spread of harmful misinformation (propaganda) or messages inciting hatred based on who you are (as opposed to what you may say or do) on their platforms. The ownership of the media needs to be looked at to prevent wealthy billionaires, often with their own agendas, getting to unduly influence what millions of others think.

    • Paying subsidies to farmers and other businesses with significant areas of land under their control if they use their land in a climate- and ecologically-friendly, socially-responsible way.

    • Incentivizing/educating their citizens to do the following:
    a) reduce their personal contribution to greenhouse gas emissions: reducing energy consumption in the home, revising method/frequency of travel and dietary habits (e.g., switching from meat from cows, which produce methane mainly through burps, to a plant-based food) are examples of changes that could help.
    b) avoid activities (buying products which contain palm oil, for example) which have been linked to habitat loss.
    Voucher rewards, e.g., for those completing a climate-change awareness course, is an example of an incentive that might be offered.

For those of you who are skeptical or in denial about climate change, or who simply need a reminder about its multiple harmful effects and the irreversible damage to the planet that is now occurring, please watch the following series of 5 videos, the first and fourth featuring British broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough, which will give you a much greater sense of what is really going on and what is at stake than the supposed “experts” you may have heard:

Video 1:

 

 

Video 2:

 

 

Video 3:

 

 

Video 4:

 

 

Video 5:

 

 

Without radical UN reform, the likelihood of more or worse wars increases, both as a consequence of missing out on the improved mechanisms for resolving conflicts and disputes peacefully that this petition suggests, and through the “threat multiplier” effect of climate change explained in the last of the videos “Can climate change cause war?” above. With more or worse wars, the chances of genocide, terrorism, and the use of weapons of terror—including chemical and nuclear—also increases.

As the videos above demonstrate, more or worse wars certainly aren’t the only thing we have to worry about if we continue on our present course! Significant changes are urgently needed, and the UN shouldn’t be immune from that.

~ 5. CONCLUSION ~

You will likely hear the arguments of the smart-sounding pessimists for maintaining the status quo at the U.N., such as realpolitik (preferring pragmatic over ethical considerations, or, in other words, pandering to / appeasing powerful bullies such as certain veto-wielding members of the Security Council) and keeping a nice and convenient forum open to all nations however badly they behave, for fear they might walk away from the UN or behave even more appallingly than they do already! We have now had over seven decades of this fear- and cowardice-driven approach, however, and if you were genuinely of the opinion that it has been working even scarcely, barely, acceptably well, would you really be taking the time and trouble to read this petition?!

Significant (radical) reform of the appeasing, blame-deflecting, corrupt, dysfunctional, hypocritical and wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing “United” Nations and its “Security” Council is almost inevitable given their extremely serious failures, including the following:

    • Failure to resolve major conflicts peacefully—including the costly and dangerous for humanity Russia-Ukraine war and the conflict in the Middle East, both of which have the potential to spark a much wider conflict that could one day become known as World War III.

    • Failure to avoid the ongoing climate and ecological emergencies—the former of which has already resulted in many thousands of excess deaths worldwide annually, e.g. through heat stress; the latter of which has already, as a result of humanity’s unrestrained activities, driven to extinction many species, including the dodo, the Tasmanian tiger and the Baiji river dolphin; the threats include immense suffering (through floods, starvation, wars, etc.), civilization breakdown (with anarchy, uncontrolled crime and violence, and collapse of healthcare and sanitation among the dire consequences), great loss of life, and the ongoing sixth mass extinction of species eventually reaching us humans!

However, this petition is an attempt to initiate significant, radical reform of the UN and its Security Council sooner rather than too-late, and do it in a better, fairer way, so we end up with a reformed and modernized organization that is truly fit to meet the life-or-death, existential challenges of the 21st century.

Now would be a good time for you to decide whether you would like to sign this petition or not. Repeating the choices first mentioned at the end of Part 1:

    1. You can back the status quo continuing indefinitely in the U.N. and its Security Council by declining to sign the petition. :-(
    Maybe you have decided that this is the “safer” option and that you are willing to put your trust in the professionals of the UN, who—constrained by the current UN charter rules, including the right to veto, and in alliance with the status quo powers who exploit them—have failed to stop Russia’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine, peacefully resolve other major conflicts, or adequately care for the planet and its inhabitants (most noticeably with climate change spiralling dangerously out of control!), but have said and done some good things over the decades and at least appear to be making efforts. You might want to reflect, in future times, whether your decision to turn a blind eye to the serious failures and defects of the UN and back the status-quo system continuing to lead us was the right one, even as ever more catastrophic and tragic events continue to shatter lives at relentless pace in the violent world around us.
    You also may be tempted to choose this option if you hold pessimistic/“realistic” beliefs, such as “The powers that be won’t pay attention to this petition, and even if they did, this would take many years, so I won’t bother signing!”. Be aware, though, that yourself and many others simultaneously yielding to these negative beliefs leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy: meaningful and timely change at the UN and its Security Council through this route ends up failing simply because not enough people optimistically sign the petition for it to get noticed and for a key petition aim—THE SUMMIT—to be seriously considered. The status quo powers rely on the vast majority of people caving in to such negative beliefs in order to maintain indefinitely their grip on the reins of power, so I urge you not to fall for it!

    2. You can support a radical reform there soon as possible by signing. :-)
    If, on the other hand, you are willing, for the sake of humanity and the rest of life on planet Earth, to put to one side whatever pessimistic/“realistic” beliefs you might have in order to help build a world (via radical reform of the “United” Nations and its “Security” Council) that is decidedly more just, safer, more peaceful, kinder and—last but not least—more respectful of nature, then please take a moment to help us turn this into reality by optimistically signing this petition!

If you do kindly decide to sign, please scrutinize Appendix J.

You can find photo credits for the petition images in Appendix K.

Finally, thank you very much for reading this long petition, especially if you have decided—courageously and optimistically in your desire for a better future for all the inhabitants of this planet—to sign. :-)

~ THE END ~