This is still worth thinking about. It’s the paragraph that follows my previous entry. In those early days, people didn’t write UN, but U.N.O.:
In order to have any efficacy whatever, a world organization must be able to override big states as well as small ones. It must have power to inspect and limit armaments, which means that its officials must have access to every square inch of every country. It must also have at its disposal an armed force bigger than any other armed force and responsible only to the organization itself. The two or three great states that really matter have never even pretended to agree to any of these conditions, and they have so arranged the constitution of U.N.O. that their own actions cannot even be discussed. In other words, U.N.O.’s usefulness as an instrument of world peace is nil. This was just as obvious before it began functioning as it is now. Yet only a few months ago millions of well-informed people believed that it was going to be a success.
but even the thought that big states have to talk to little states is progress, historically speaking. my blog partner and i argue about institutions like the wto a lot. When the developing nations walked out of the wto because of farm subsidies, i think we were both thinking we were right. for him it was proof that the wto didn’t work, for me it was an historic moment; the developing nations finally had a place from which to walk out on europe and the us.