What is wrong with the United Nations? Should it be fixed? I suspect that the answer to the first question is that the UN stands for nothing in particular, except talk, and more and more often serves as a legitimizing venue for talk about approaches to the world that should curl the hair of any supporter of modern, liberal ideas about constructing democratic republics based on value for individual liberty and security. The answer to the second question is that it might be smarter to learn from our mistakes and craft a new organization, one which does not treat all possible state visions as equal, but openly and confidently promotes the formation of modern, liberal, democratic republics.
There seems little purpose to insisting that all visions of state organization are equally valid, since following that line of reasoning leads, and has led, to accepting that very repressive states should have equal standing in assessing and addressing the world’s repressive regimes. It means not being able to say, as a founding principle, that slavery is wrong and should be abolished, actually abolished, that suppression of women’s voting, education or other rights is just wrong, and should be eliminated. Or anyone’s voting, education or other rights.