Let ideology refer to goals and methods. Let the goal of any ideology be how a society or something should work. World peace is a goal that all members of the human family are willing to cooperate to achieve.

Most people are willing to agree that politics based on the idea of self-determination is the best form of government to arrive at political and ethical truths as compared to politics that functions on the basis of aristocratic, despotic, or monarchic attributes. This means that Woodrow Wilson’s 1918 suggestion for humanity to pursue an idealism based on self-determination as a common standard for achieving world peace is an aspiration that surpasses all the collaborations or resources that have been developed since then.

This statement also signifies that the problem with humankind not managing to figure out a century later how to make future wars impossible is not due to a logical error or human error in the guiding goal (ideology) that Woodrow Wilson proposed but perhaps in the methodology.

Let us examine if the challenge resides in the method.

The United States is the mastermind of the set of political systems and institutions that mankind started using in 1945 to pursue Wilsonian idealism. Since 1945, the United Nations has remained the largest intergovernmental organization tasked with promoting international cooperation and creating and maintaining international order in the world. The United Nations has achieved prominence in the social arena, but not in so far as becoming the agency for achieving world peace and cooperation. The United Nations has proved incapable of preventing wars.

Could Franklin D. Roosevelt have known that knowledge and ideas push people to want to pursue the full realization of their personality or that greed and corruption have been identified as the greatest obstacle to human development? For this reason, only five task-oriented organizations were approved and attached to the UN (IMF, World Bank, FAO, and 2 others) when the vision for a postwar international system was outlined. Could Roosevelt have known that when alien (foreign) people take on the role of preparing people to determine their political status or how to pursue economic, social, and cultural development, this action prevents the development of the central end people came together to practice at the United Nations?

Socio-economic movements initiate all political systems, which then undergo transformation into governments or carryover. Could Roosevelt have known that if a very large number of socio-economic task-oriented organizations are created and are made to operate from under any overarching system as per what the existing states did after 1945 at this postwar international organization? This action emulates mounting a government and not a council tasked with just offering advisory services to member states on how to maintain international peace and security. Is the United Nations a government in exile?

It remains to be seen what the existing states will reap from having a UN task-oriented organization lend them a hand with teaching their citizens on how to attain the full development of their personality when those UN workers who are doing this coaching them too are pursuing the full development of their personality.

In effect, how the existing nations expect that the UN self-financed task-oriented organizations that they created (ex: UNOPS) and mandated to teach their citizens on how to prevail over the weakness of their will manage to influence their own people so they agree to begin to collaborate in the economic field with the object of securing improved social security for all. When the means and the mechanism that member states want to accomplish this common standard of achievement are being carried out through the intermediary of UN task-oriented organizations that are supposed, at the same time, to ensure that it is extending the conventional bottom line that measures fiscal performance—financial profit or loss—it is a paradox.

Can humankind manage to attain world peace when the public funds that governments reserve to address such a core mission are being managed by civil servants whom the member states have exempted from the jurisdiction of local laws, and when none of the institutions that make up the organization of the specific government of the member states at this council operate in this manner?

The decision of the powerful nations to prepare the people of the nations they decolonized through the intermediary of UN task-oriented organizations, while some are even getting paid for offering such services, is strange. Those superpowers could have easily absorbed those freed people at the end of the Second World War and made them become part of their own sovereignty directly if the goal was to accelerate the interdependence between human societies. Surely, if the superpowers intended on organizing and centralizing human societies to be interdependent instead of letting people have the right to freely determine their political status and economic and social development as Franklin Roosevelt intended, all small and large nations would use their self-determination to achieve it in cooperation with this council. Perhaps absorbing the freed people at the end of the Second World War could have spared the powerful nations from the hassle of dealing with having to do what appears to be now ongoing. This is to figure out how to control the propensity of the people that were decolonized, plus what to do with the UN task-oriented organizations that the member states created.

It hasn’t been established yet if creating and accrediting independent task-oriented organizations to prepare people on how to cooperate on the basis of the ideals that are declared in the United Nations Charter accelerate crises and conflicts. Mankind never practiced constructive purposes in this manner before 1945.

It appears as if the decision of the great powers to embark on a civilizing mission using UN task-oriented organizations and others to accelerate the political, economic, and social preparedness of people, because in their eyes this move could benefit them and accelerate the attainment of the Wilsonian idealism. This action has so far done nothing other than to accelerate the rate at which the number of people are now pursuing the full development of their personality in the world. Thus, plunging mankind in more disenchantment than before WW2.

Could the decision to switch the principal mission of this global council from focusing on how to work with sovereign governments to prevent future wars and maintain world peace to becoming a hub that rich nations use to further their interests while improving lives be the reason why this council failed to make the world safer? In other words, after the rich nations that finance the UN began to circumvent the authority of the sovereign governments as a partner to prepare their citizens and depended on UN task-oriented organizations. The prevalence of grandiose delusion symptoms quickly caught up and transformed the mission of those UN task-oriented organizations from one intended to lend a hand with teaching on how to be tolerant to one that UN workers use to pursue the full realization of their own personality. Thus, we have today a powerful social and economic welfare agency or movement operating at this council, minus the Wilsonian goal that this council was initially created to accomplish.

Indeed, this method that existing nations are using to prepare people to cooperate to attain the ideals that are declared in the United Nations Charter is not in accordance with the original blueprint that the leaders who created this global council designed or perceived that in partnership with the IMF and the World Bank, mankind would be able to prevent future wars. It appears as if the method that existing states are using to make progress on how to make their citizens voluntary or, by virtue of the governance system they adapt, consent is not due to a logical error in the Wilsonian ideology, as we said earlier, but a human error in the method that is being pursued to achieve this goal.

How peace and security will evolve is relatively easy to forecast. The superpower could reconsider whether the responsibility of preparing people should remain with their respective governments, as is the case in developed nations, or whether this action should be unrestricted, as it currently is in developing countries. Alternatively, we can continue to wait and embrace the situation until the superpower completes its process of allowing technology to control human actions in nature, which will help determine if we can truly practice the Wilsonian ideology in peace.