Urgent to whom? We live in a multipolar world now.
Countries already use criminals as political tools to advance their goals on the world stage. What makes you think expanding these efforts will somehow change existing geopolitical behavior?
All systems of law break down into the imposers, and the imposed upon. You don't have to impose anything on the voluntarily compliant, but what about those that refuse? Are you going to invade or kill innocent people just because a few leaders don't want to play by your rules?
Sanctions don't work for their intended political purpose. The only reason politicians talk about them is because it enables their corporate masters to swoop into markets and make a lot of money. (And if you disagree, I ask you find a study pointing to how sanctions were politically successful.)
> What does that have to do with it? We should expect more of international institutions in a multipolar world.
The whole reason why the world went from unipolar to multipolar is because the existing international organizations failed. What you're missing is these international organizations are political instruments used to obstruct and hinder Russia and China's development. The people in those countries don't share your supposition that more international organizations are a good thing.
> It's urgent to anyone that has had to deal with ransomware gangs.
What makes you think an international organization can do anything about ransomware? It's existed in this form for over a decade and nobody has done anything about it.
> It's urgent for countries suffering from violent cartels.
Why hasn't some international organization been formed to handled this then? Multipolarity is a very recent.
> It's urgent for Canada, which just accused India of assassinating one of its citizens on Canadian soil.
Do you think Canada is going to war with India over this?
> The whole reason why the world went from unipolar to multipolar is because the existing international organizations failed.
They "failed" because they were gutted by a covert, powerful and violent "right-wing" alliance (imperialists, capitalists, white supremacists, all who felt tremendously victimized by recent global events incl. rise of communism). They were not about to throw away centuries of dominance to share international power with "inferior" classes of human.
The UN was rather effective in its initial decades.
Do you really think Hammarskjold, Kennedies, African(-American) leaders getting assassinated en masse in the 1960s was a spate of random coincidence? They were all united in opposing this covert alliance.
But the world is different now, the Global South is decisively emerging from under the imperial boot and multipolarity has a real chance.
> They "failed" because they were gutted by a covert, powerful and violent "right-wing" alliance (imperialists, capitalists, white supremacists, all who felt tremendously victimized by recent global events incl. rise of communism). They were not about to throw away centuries of dominance to share international power with "inferior" classes of human.
It seems no answer can satisfy you.
You're saying we need more international organizations (or more powerful ones) to prevent the problems described. But when we do form these international organizations, and they don't do exactly like you hoped it's because of intangible reasons that cannot be falsified.
> The UN was rather effective in its initial decades.
The League of Nations, which precedes the UN, was rather effective in the 1920s and didn't include the USA. It also completely dropped the ball by 1930. Historians partially blame the League of Nations for the outbreak of second World War.
> Do you really think Hammarskjold, Kennedies, African(-American) leaders getting assassinated en masse in the 1960s was a spate of random coincidence? They were all united in opposing this covert alliance.
You're vacillating between wanting more powerful international organizations, but at the same time don't want international organizations wielding their power in ways you personally don't approve of.
I assure you there is nothing intangible about a clear pattern of high-profile assassinations, to say nothing of other related global events.
> You're vacillating between wanting more powerful international organizations, but at the same time don't want international organizations wielding their power in ways you personally don't approve of
You really can't see the difference between overt, ratified international institutions, and shadowy, nameless, violent special-interest groups? Come now.
I acknowledge there's pattern of high-profile assassinations in history that raise questions and seem interconnected. However, attributing them to a small covert group is a logical leap.
What would convince you they're not conspiring together?
As for international organizations, my point is that even ratified and official organizations are not immune to political pressures and special interests. How do we ensure transparency, efficacy, and fairness when the existing entities can't do that sufficiently well to maintain unipolarity?
Countries already use criminals as political tools to advance their goals on the world stage. What makes you think expanding these efforts will somehow change existing geopolitical behavior?
All systems of law break down into the imposers, and the imposed upon. You don't have to impose anything on the voluntarily compliant, but what about those that refuse? Are you going to invade or kill innocent people just because a few leaders don't want to play by your rules?
Sanctions don't work for their intended political purpose. The only reason politicians talk about them is because it enables their corporate masters to swoop into markets and make a lot of money. (And if you disagree, I ask you find a study pointing to how sanctions were politically successful.)