When I first stepped into the United Nations headquarters at 405 East 42nd Street in New York a decade ago, my first impression was one of disorientation and ambivalence. Even then, existential institutional exhaustion was already palpable.

To an outside observer, it may represent a world government or an emblem of collective security, but inside it is anything but. It is a fractured world of countless national silos. And to an average New Yorker, why even an average American, it is not a symbol of global representation but an island of privilege. Its diplomatic immunity runs counter to the egalitarian spirit of a democracy. No wonder many prominent Americans, some say even the incumbent US president, have toyed with the idea of evicting the UN from New York. In many eyes, the value of the property beats the properties of values espoused by the UN.

To be honest, it has outlived expectations. A product of post-war optimism, it had to contend with the dark exigencies of the Cold War. Before post-Cold War relief and a return to foundational principles could take root, 9/11 happened. The global war on terror gave way to hostile multipolarity and the rise of hyper-nationalism. When chips are down, everyone considers you broken and claims to want to fix you. But the real desire is to institutionalise leverage, dominance and privilege. So efforts are underway to "reform" or "fix" it. In this bizarro world, every claim means the opposite of the stated intent.

The reform debate, running since 2008 through the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN), keeps circling the same four positions: the Group of Four (G4) wants permanent seats for itself and two for Africa, the African Group wants two........

© The Express Tribune