Humanity is entering an unprecedented situation. For the first time in modern history there is no clear leader in world affairs. The deepening financial and economic crisis has paralyzed national governments, regional bodies, and international organizations.

The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank no longer have the funds to bail out countries forced to the brink of bankruptcy by the crisis. The World Trade Organization is being sidelined by bilateral, regional, and interregional trade agreements.

The former dominant power, the United States, is more and more reluctant to take responsibility for solving international problems. The capability and resolve of the US in international affairs is declining in the face of its difficulties at home. With its focus firmly on domestic economic recovery, the US is happy to put international issues that are not critical to its interests on the back burner.

On the other hand, none of the other global or regional powers has the strength to exert preponderant influence in world affairs. China, intent on "peaceful development" of its economy, advocates cooperation with other countries, and eschews a leading role in international affairs, even in regional issues such as the Six-Party Talks on the Korea nuclear issue.

Russia, a military power and an economically rising nation, thinks globally but behaves regionally. It is concerned with its local spheres of influence rather than broader international issues. The EU is growing in size, but paradoxically its role in world affairs is shrinking. It cannot translate its internal cooperation onto the international stage.

None of the new cooperative models of global governance that have arisen in recent years seem able to fill the gap. As the G-7 lost its voice in the face of the world crisis, the G-20 appeared as an alternative, with developing countries sharing global power that had been exclusive to the richest countries. But developing countries lack both management experience and authority. If they fail to unite to defend their interests in the new international framework, they risk being used by developed countries in a reform of international institutions that does not meet their needs.

The concept of a G-2 is little more than a way for the United States to flatter the Chinese government. China is not ready to play a leading role in world affairs, and in any case has no historical tradition of seeking hegemony, even in periods when it had the capability to do so. China does not seek leadership, but equal treatment. It opposes intervention in its own affairs, but equally does not intervene in the internal affairs of others.

Since no G-2, G-7, G-20 or G-N can adequately represent the interests of all the countries in the world, perhaps it is time to turn to the organization set up for that purpose at the end of the Second World War – the United Nations.

No other organization can equal the UN in terms of breadth of representation or depth of experience in solving international problems. It is a unique international platform for countries to engage with each other in accordance with the principles of a founding Charter that reflects the interests and concerns of the world.