Nations would retain their own autonomy, except in certain situations. The U. N. would step in only in those situations such as when one nation is aggressing against another. Similar to the police leaving you alone unless you're breaking a law.

Now, I'm sure that you can come up with instances in which police officers have hassled private citizens for no good reason, but that doesn't mean that the principle is unsound.

The exceptions as far as a nation's internal affairs are concerned, would be in the area of human rights. The U. N. charter would allow it to interfere in the internal affairs of a country only if the government in power was blatantly violating the rights of its citizens. I shouldn't have to give examples of this happening, because they're in the news all the time. Case in point, Iraq under Saddam Hussein. With the U. N. operating well, the Bush administration would not have had an excuse to invade Iraq. Any terrorist activity would be treated internationally by the U. N. as criminal activity (not declaring a "war on terror"), making use of the intelligence forces of its member nations to attempt to prevent future attacks and track down the terrorist leaders and bring them before a duly constituted international court. And if those like Hussein are oppressing their citizenry, this also would be handled by the U. N., avoiding the excuses and abuses of some country like the U. S. using it as an excuse to invade primarily for the purpose of gaining geopolitical power and control of resources in the area. Had this been the case, we would not be up to our ears in another "Big Muddy," and the Middle East would not be in the mess it's in now. Nor would Iran and North Korea feel they need to have nuclear weapons as a deterent against future aggression from US.

Yes, in the same way that Montana, Ohio, and California give up some of their sovereignty for the advantages of a federation of states, the whole world could operate the same way. There haven't been many wars lately between Kansas and Nebraska.

Incidentally, that scene didn't exist in the version of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" that I saw, and I've seen the movie several times. And the story was actually suggested by a short story entitled "Farewell to the Master," by Harry Bates back in 1941. I actually read the story in an anthology before the movie came out. Hugo and Nebula Award winner Robert J. Sawyer writes the following comments about the movie:

Most fans of science fiction know Robert Wise's 1951 movie The Day the Earth Stood Still. It's the one with Klaatu, the humanoid alien who comes to Washington, D.C., accompanied by a giant robot named Gort, and it contains that famous instruction to the robot:   "Klaatu borada nikto."

Fewer people know the short story upon which that movie is based: "Farewell to the Master," written in 1941 by Harry Bates.

In both the movie and the short story, Klaatu, despite his message of peace, is shot by human beings. In the short story, the robot — called Gnut, instead of Gort — comes to stand vigil over the body of Klaatu.

Cliff, a journalist who is the narrator of the story, likens the robot to a faithful dog who won't leave after his master has died. Gnut manages to essentially resurrect his master, and Cliff says to the robot, "I want you to tell your master ... that what happened ... was an accident, for which all Earth is immeasurably sorry."

And the robot looks at Cliff and astonishes him by very gently saying, "You misunderstand. I am the master."

And the short story ends there. Robert Wise expanded it for the movie to include the message he wanted to put across.

But back to the original subject. I was not suggesting building an army of Gorts as a reasonable option, even if we could. You are right. We have to do it ourselves. And most individuals do have a moral compass. But it seems to be the nature of groups, including nations (including the United States with all its stated ideals), that they are ruled primarily by selfish interests to the detriment of other groups and individuals.

I think that one way that merits exploration (since the organization already exists, and since that was its original intent) would be to clean up the U.N., reorganize it, and expand its powers to include teeth. It's actions would be governed by the General Assembly and Security Council, and all member nations would have a say in those actions. And the veto power issue should be revisited, so that a single nation (such as the one committing the offense in question) can't render the U.N. inert.

As a species, we are still pretty damned immature. We (speaking particularly of collectives, such as nations) need to grow up a lot. And among other things, that means learning that if we're going to live in a civilized world, we can't always have our own way.

Don Firth