A Possible Path to Peace
Remember these days. Remember the sunlight and the rain. Yet be joyful - any day without nuclear winter is a good day! And, if you are really lucky, you may get to tell your grandchildren about this lead-up to WW III. We're faced with a silver-back with an empire fantasy; we're faced with another silver-back throwing air-power juvenile-male tantrums anytime important people visit Taiwan. On the third pole of Orwell's 1984 permanent-war triumvirate is a certain fossil.
Yet people just love to push War to the limit (or beyond), that seems to be the plan, since nuclear power looks like the logical end-point of the male brain thought process, and everyone is just supposed to go along with it (lemmings?). People just have to demand better governance!
At present, I am proposing what I call The Grand Bargain, which might result in world peace:
NATO is an evil in this world but has been built up to such an extent that it makes an excellent bargaining chip.
Without naming any international bad actors, let us propose to the world that in exchange for disbanding NATO, the Security Council of the UN will be upgraded so that it actually serves its intended purpose. There will be no "permanent members;" all members will be appointed by the General Assembly from a list of nations ranked in order of how well they have provided peace, order and good governance and generally improved living conditions in their countries, during the previous five years.
Nations which have instigated wars inside or outside their borders are proscribed. The principal activity of the Security Council will be to promote peace and prohibit all wars in and between nations. We cannot pretend to have a civilization on this small blue planet as long as war is an ever-present option.
The Security Council will have the power to call any offending nation to the floor of the General Assembly to explain to the world how they intend to provide peace, order and good governance in lands they control; otherwise, they immediately lose sovereignty and become dependencies of the UN.
Then, having established that sovereignty is not a singular property of a nation but rather an attribute conferred upon it by the consensus of the world community, we can make progress on getting nations to live in usufruct, living on the fruits of the land, rather than tearing it apart for profit. Thus the intended actions of China, for example, would be ruled out, that being their desire to fully "develop" their "Great Western Storehouseā, meaning their intention to mine the Tibet Plateau down to sea-level or below in their quest for world-dominance in mineral production.
I can support this.
It has also been suggested the UN must move from New York and possibly have headquarters based in different world cities for fixed terms . It cannot afford to be seen as "Washingtoncentric " and its financing must be much more diversified as Washington has too much control over its financing.