National governments are a necessary evil,World goverment would be an unnecessary abomination.A strong UN would have mankind at its mercy with no other redress.If we were to get it wrong it would be a disaster for the whole globe.Not interested in a strong UN,not at all.

Start small. An international organization can't bring peace, love, baseball, hotdogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet. Collective security is a flop. Most nations don't get involved in a tussel, to "stop agression"-the little guys always lie low, while the big guys prefer to do the job themselves when it involves them. They will ignore it if it dosn't. When there is a big flare up, of course the UN will get kicked out of the way and ignored. No nation will sacrifice it's vital interests to a will of the wisp. Given the choice between surviving and disobeying the UN, we know which most would prefer. The UN doesn't have enough force to think of compelling anyone-unless the big boys support it. It is true that the members manipulate the UN. This cannot be changed, for it comes from the nature of politics-and the nature of man. The UN is however not totally useless. It can mediate small conflicts. While it is easy to underestimate the human potential for stupidity, probably most governments would prefer to negotiate the fishing rights off Cape John Doe, than go through the risk of taking to arms. The UN offers a chance to do this and save face; the loser at the bargaining table can always say that they are not compelled but are following the will of the Great Concord For Peace. Snuffing out minor crisises may seem a small achievment, but there will be many who can be grateful. The UN can also "referee" ongoing conflicts. That is it can arrange prisoner exchanges, truces for picking up wounded and cleaning the mess, and such other things as might be useful. This cannot be taken too far though, for few will risk defeat for the sake of chivalry. Moreover most of the factions fighting today tend to seem distinctly "unchivalrous". As I said, start small. One very useful thing it can do is put blue-hats in a DMZ, as part of a ceace-fire. This prevents a suprise attack and thus will make the two parties more willing to let their guard down. An example of this is paradoxically, a failure of this policy. Nassar of Egypt, during a time of tension ordered the UN out of the way. This action through away all suprise; Nassar was practically saying, "Hey Israel I'm coming". Of course, the Israeli's believed him and gave him a sound thrashing. This type of action shows what use the "Blue-hat in neutral zone can be". If either side barrels through the UN it will insult the world as well as lose suprise. If (as is unlikly) the UN resists it will blunt the attack. On the other hand if the UN is ordered out, the attacker has shone his hand. Thus both sides have an incentive to behave. These are some examples of things the UN can do. It can't bring world peace. However if it concentrates on things like that it might make a slightly safer world.