The idea of forming a general association of nations under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike was suggested long before the League of Nations or, later, the United Nations was established.

In 1795, Immanuel Kant outlined in his book “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” the idea of an association of nations to maintain international order and promote international co-operation.

Historians argue that the League of Nations failed to maintain international peace and security and prevent the Second World War due to weaknesses inherent in its mandate. The future United Nations that emerged in the aftermath of the Second World War incorporated the lessons learned / gained from the League of Nations to reduce the potential for failure and reinforce positive results.

The United Nations failed to prevent conflicts between nations and make future wars impossible. This council has achieved considerable prominence in the social arena only to date (improving health, education, water, sanitation, and so forth).

The failure of the United Nations to maintain international order cannot stem from a “flaw” identified while collecting lessons learned from the League of Nations’ failure. This conclusion indicates that either the League of Nations forgot about this “fault” or it didn’t exist during its operation. If this reason emerged after the United Nations was created, this “flaw” could only result from actions that the United Nations initiated, which the League of Nations did not undertake. In other words, the UN’s involvement in this practice, which it wasn’t meant to do, or the US’s adoption of it, weakened the UN’s ability to fulfil its purpose.

There are two other reasons that could be causing this failure. One of them is whether the idea of establishing a peaceful community of nations is erroneous for world peace or if improving people’s social conditions weakens peace and security in the world. This article does not address those two causes.

I will explain how the UN’s failure to be a model democracy may be due to the Council’s adoption of practices the League of Nations did not use. In other words, the failure of the United Nations to make headway on its mission could stem from the council starting to practise activities that were not expected of it. This may explain why the “flaw” was not identified during the drafting of the United Nations plans.

It has not yet been established whether corruption or greed are inherent qualities of human nature. However, since the day when man began to use human reason to coerce others to force them to consent, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and to submit to the authority of a ruler or magistrate in exchange for the protection of remaining rights. The primary reason humans established systems to evaluate the legitimacy of a ruler’s or magistrate’s authority over individuals was to control and regulate greed and corruption.

If we compare the decision made by mankind to create the United Nations with the decision made by a group of people to spread Christianity and establish an ecclesiastical jurisdiction responsible for the governance of all Catholics, we can see parallels in their motivations.

The Holy See is an ecclesiastical jurisdiction responsible for the governance of all Catholics organised into their particular churches, patriarchates, and religious institutes. The Holy See is a sovereign city-state entirely enclaved within the Italian capital city of Rome, known as the Vatican City State. The Holy See holds sovereignty over the Vatican City State, which is not formally sovereign.

The United Nations is an independent entity, holding an enclave in New York City as sovereign territory similar to the walled enclave that the Holy See maintains within the city of Rome. The walled enclave of the United Nations is not formally sovereign, but with sovereignty being maintained on the equality of all its members. In other words, it is viewed as analogous to a state while being administered by different state-nations who join.

What the Holy See and the United Nations have in common is that they are both public international law entities that have diplomatic relations with almost every country in the world.

Most importantly, both the Holy See and the United Nations advocate for social progress and improved living standards, enabling people to live their lives free from fear and want.

The Holy See has had its share of dealing with people who use priesthood to disguise greed and corruption while preaching good. However, if we compare how long this ecclesiastical or sacerdotal-monarchical state has been in existence (i.e., since antiquity) to the large number of dishonest or unethical conduct that has been reported about the United Nations since this council was created. We find that, despite all the dishonesty or unethical conduct that was reported about priests or clergymen who use priesthood to hide greed and corruption, the legitimacy of the Holy See was not questioned in as much as it has been done in the case of the United Nations during these past seventy-two years.

The UN system, also known unofficially as the “UN family”, is made up of the UN itself and many affiliated programmes, funds, and specialised agencies, all with their own membership, leadership, and budget, which were not programmed when this council was established or when the idea to create an international organisation emerged. Only five task-orientated organisations were approved at the time when the United Nations was established. All the task-orientated organisations that the member states voted to be added were added later.

The task-orientated organisations that the member states created and attached to this international organisation are all working on preparing people on how to practise tolerance to live together in peace with one another as good neighbours by charging a direct and indirect fee for their services. In effect, the United Nations now has, as part of its UN task-orientated organisations, agencies that are self-financed and charge a fee for their service. In other words, the United Nations is teaching people how they should start to trust each other more and build fellowship, using UN task-orientated organisations that are dedicated to extending the conventional bottom line that measures fiscal performance – financial profit or loss – at the same time. That’s not all; the UN has task-orientated organisations that operate as a one-stop shop to transform public funds into public works and services. UNOPS is a task-orientated organisation that the UN mandated for all procurement activities, including offering project management services on the funds it awards and direct execution with its own people. In other words, with no checks and balances integrated whatsoever as per how it’s done in public institutions. The same management are the ones who decide everything.

Could the Holy See have survived if this ecclesiastical government had gotten in the business of managing public funds on behalf of intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, international and regional financial institutions, foundations, and the private sector for the purpose of implementing social and economic development projects while teaching Catholicism at the same time?

Could Judaism, Islam, Christianity and all the other religions that mankind has known survive if those creeds developed norms or actions that ensure compliance with regulations, rules and public procurement, project management and engineering principles and then started charging a fee for teaching the Ten Commandments or fairness, transparency and integrity in the same way the United Nations created UNOPS and the others to a lesser extent to be dedicated to doing?

Could the flaw for the failure of the United Nations in reaching to prevent future wars be because this organisation has become itself a source that generates problems?

The United Nations could learn a lot from the Holy See and all the other religions to increase the effectiveness of mankind. It appears as if the triumph of democracy is not due to a flaw in Kant’s guiding ideology or in what Woodrow Wilson or later Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed. Rather, the problem is exacerbated by our inherited tendency to repeatedly make wrong choices even when we genuinely know what is right. One possible solution to maintain international order could be to reorganise this council based on the blueprint intended by its original founders in 1945. Governments could then deposit their donations in the bank account of the respective governments, which is the system that states have historically used to work together.