The UN has flaws, just like every other organisation. However, to
view it as "impotent and incapable" is both currently and
historically incorrect. The UN has a long track record of high
success in the fields of international law, human rights,
humanitarian affairs, social development, economical development,
and, with its peacekeeping forces, in the
areas of peace and national / international
security.
The main flaw the UN has is that it is a bureaucracy unlike
anything we have seen in a long time. The UN's indecision, especially
on global peace and international security issues, is reflected in
the agendas (sometimes hidden, sometimes not)
of its member states. Getting every single member state to agree
is futile, which is why a majority decision system is set up. In
addition to this, several states have received a right to veto, which
in itself can be seen as a sabotage of the true democratic process,
giving certain member states significantly higher powers that others.
There are numerous examples of these member states abusing their
veto-right to cancel a decision that was otherwise unanimous.
The flipside of the veto-system, is that the non-democratic states
have no real say in UN policies: If anything vitally against the
wishes of a member state was to be suggested by one of the
non-democratic states, it would be generally ignored or - if
in conflict with the interests of the states with the power to veto -
vetoed.
There is a certain need for a new global power / authority-type idea
or a reformed UN. However, the writeup above still presupposes that all
democratic nations per definition agree on all matters. As we
have seen recently, with both France and Germany opposing the UK
and US view on the recent second Gulf War, this sort of unity in
thought is a logical and diplomatic impossibility.
Furthermore, the definition of "democracy" is a little sketchy. I,
for one, and many with me, believe that the USA is not a democracy -
not only in the sense of the voting and election systems, but also in the sense that freedom of
speech and the other human rights. The old discussion
about the death penalty being against the human rights, for example.
While "Freedom of Speech" both theoretically and legally is accepted
as being a virtue granted the population, it does not, in fact, exist in
its original form in any country that I am aware of. Oh, sure it is
legal to say almost anything, but the freedom to be heard is
something different altogether: The mainstream media are extremely
heavily censored by political and financial agendas, and only a very
small minority use alternative media / the internet to get beyond the
corporate pulp.
The major flaw, however, is the polarity of the overall idea.
Cultural imperialism is strongly disliked, not only by what you
describe as totalitarian regimes, but also by a large portion of the
rest of the world. The manifesto is all but based on this governing
force. In a manifesto that is designed to embrace the whole world in a
common good, it is extremely arrogant to assume a standpoint that seems
significantly anti-Islamic based.
Of course, nobody likes terrorism, but the revenge strategies that
the US and UK have employed so far are diplomatically unviable. This is
one of the reasons why the UN was unwilling to help with the invasion
of Iraq, and it seems that this is the main argument you use in your
claim that the UN is ineffective. To me, it would appear that the UN
has rather decided to hold its options open - the #1 rule in holding a
successful global diplomacy.
You further mention "A necessary condition of the implementation of
those principles is the commitment of every member of the AFN to them".
Which is never going to happen, for the reasons above, but also because
there is already a strong sense of resentment that one nation
(currently the US, but that could change) seemingly has an agenda to
control the world. No state in the world would accept - or be allowed
to accept, by its citizens - to let an external force have full control
over a countrys' foreign policy. As an example: The US would never
accept that, say France, was to take full control of its military
powers.
Furthermore, The attack on Iraq could (unlikely, I know, but
stay with me) have failed, for example if Iraq would have gotten
unexpected help from one or more of its neighbouring countries. What
would that have done to the relations between the US/UK coalition
and Iraq? The situation would have been completely inconsolable,
and if Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction (the
official reason for going into Iraq, remember? And they still
haven't found any weapons), it would have created a permanently damaged
relation between the countries, causing a tense situation that could
only have been resolved through UN intervention or another war.
The author of the above manifesto seems to forget that the people
living in "tyrannical regimes breeding extremism of all kinds" are
human beings that can be reasoned with. However, it will have to be on
their premises, using a universally open form of discussion,
without the automatic assumption that the conversion to democracy is
the right solution to all countries.
Attacking a set of countries because they do not have the same set of
governments or values - especially if religion (Islam,
in this case) is part of the argument for attacking such a
nation-state, is a gross miscalculation of good taste. It is also very
dangerous:
China, for example, might be a "totalitarian nation", but they
are not stupid. When the west (presumably with the US spearheading
the situation, which will not only cause a lot of distress, but also
reinforce the already present contempt of the US as a nation) starts
their campaign against all states with a non-democratic way of life,
you would instantly create a gap between everybody who is, and
everybody who is not democratic. The gap would be even stronger for the
nations who have no wish to be democratic - an option that seems
nonexistent in the manifesto.
China, feeling threatened, will make military alliances with other
countries in the same situation. Against a strong force such as The
West, it is not unlikely that China would allow itself to enter into
some unlikely alliances - for example with countries like Iraq and
Libya, under the ethos that "anyone who is the enemy of the US is
our friend". The next step is as logical as it is dangerous: China,
having an abundance of nuclear weapons, would start
handing them out to countries that now are regarded terrorist states.
The next steps are simple: The US cannot safely harass, say, Libya,
because they have nuclear weapons. The whole campaign
has to be blown off, and we are back to square 1, except that every
rogue nation in the world will now have nuclear weapons, being more
dangerous than before.
All in all, I am happy that the UN is significantly wiser than the
author of the above manifesto: As I have demonstrated above, the
execution of the acts mentioned in the manifesto will with an extremely
high probability cause a significant amount of unrest - likely followed
by a world war. This time with nuclear weapons.