Here are a few words from Jimmy Carter’s 2002 Nobel Peace Prize lecture:

It is clear that global challenges must be met with an emphasis on peace, in harmony with others, with strong alliances and international consensus. Imperfect as it may be, there is no doubt that this can best be done through the United Nations, which Ralph Bunche described here in this same forum as exhibiting a “fortunate flexibility” – not merely to preserve peace but also to make change, even radical change, without violence.

He went on to say: “To suggest that war can prevent war is a base play on words and a despicable form of warmongering. The objective of any who sincerely believe in peace clearly must be to exhaust every honorable recourse in the effort to save the peace. The world has had ample evidence that war begets only conditions that beget further war.”

We must remember that today there are at least eight nuclear powers on earth, and three of them are threatening to their neighbors in areas of great international tension. For powerful countries to adopt a principle of preventive war may well set an example that can have catastrophic consequences.

If we accept the premise that the United Nations is the best avenue for the maintenance of peace, then the carefully considered decisions of the United Nations Security Council must be enforced. All too often, the alternative has proven to be uncontrollable violence and expanding spheres of hostility.

For more than half a century, following the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, the Middle East conflict has been a source of worldwide tension. At Camp David in 1978 and in Oslo in 1993, Israelis, Egyptians, and Palestinians have endorsed the only reasonable prescription for peace: United Nations Resolution 242. It condemns the acquisition of territory by force, calls for withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories, and provides for Israelis to live securely and in harmony with their neighbors. There is no other mandate whose implementation could more profoundly improve international relationships.

Perhaps of more immediate concern is the necessity for Iraq to comply fully with the unanimous decision of the Security Council that it eliminate all weapons of mass destruction and permit unimpeded access by inspectors to confirm that this commitment has been honored. The world insists that this be done.

Jimmy Carter

You could argue the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 is the moment that broke the Security Council. The United States did that. Would the world be in a perfect place today if that had not happened. Of course not. Would it be in a better place? I think so. But we are where we are. A question now is whether there is a path back to a functioning Security Council. The UN has other functions, but without this its security function is mostly dead.

What if the Security Council members were nominated and elected by the General Assembly. They would need to not have any violations of the UN’s charter within the past decade, and they would need to make up a majority of the world’s military power, measured by military spending I guess. How else would you measure this? What if the Security Council members submitted military forces to be under the council’s direct control. These could then engage in peace keeping and humanitarian missions. Perhaps they would have the power to arrest convicted criminals and uphold UN resolutions by force if necessary. The existing Security Council members wouldn’t want to give up their power, of course. This might just have to a be a new body created with no input from the existing members. Just thinking out loud here, this may not be the best proposal but with the existing council completely useless somebody needs to think of something new to try.