THE fact that the United States gets to effectively decide who attends the United Nations is proof, if ever it was needed, of why a new system of global governance is urgently required.

Towards the end of last week’s UN general assembly the US announced it was revoking Colombian President Gustavo Petro visa to enter the US. This of course means he can’t get into the country to speak at the New York-based headquarters of the UN.

This followed an earlier decision to revoke the visa of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. This forced the Palestinian leader — a man in any case widely considered to be a puppet of both the US and Israel — to speak to the assembly by video link.

All of this while another man, this one charged with genocide and crimes against humanity, Israel’s far right Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is able to pop in and out of the US at will and to address joint sessions of Congress on a fairly regular basis.

The order of speaking at the UN also sets the tone for the presumed leadership of the US over the rest of the world.

After the traditional first speech by the Brazilians — a throwback to an era when countries would not come forward to speak first for fear of damaging relations with the US and the colonial rulers from which they were emerging — the US always speaks next as the host.

This means that the president of what has portrayed itself as the policeman of the world essentially gets to set the tone for every general assembly meeting by ranting on about how wonderful they themselves are and how dreadful everyone else is and how grateful all countries should be for their benevolence.

The address from Donald Trump last week — faulty teleprompter or not — wasn’t just incoherent nonsense, it was a clear demonstration of racist so-called US exceptionalism.

I believe that the UN — which as I have said before in past features, I fully support as an institution — will never truly reform until it moves its main headquarters outside the US. I believe there is a strong case to be made to move the headquarters to Geneva.

Geneva is a city on the largest landmass in the planet — Eurasia. Many key meetings already take place there and it’s within reasonable travel distance to the international courts at The Hague in the Netherlands, where a good number of the so-called statesmen attending the UN need to end up.

The chances of this happening are fairly remote of course. Many world (mis)leaders and their diplomats love swanning off to the great city of New York.

The often talked about restructuring of the UN security council to give greater representation to the global majority is, well, just that — often talked about. But signs of anything actually happening appear as remote as ever.

Similarly, the 80th gathering of the general assembly showed few signs that it was fit for the purpose of tackling some of the major challenges facing the world.

European leaders spent a lot of time whinging about their increasingly lost proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. A war they still see intent on fighting to the last possible Ukrainian.

But while some have now recognised the state of Palestine, they have offered no meaningful action on Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

In fact there is plenty of evidence to show that Britain is still assisting the intelligence-gathering operations of the Israelis from its air base in Cyprus.

European Council president Antonio Costa managed to keep a straight face as he claimed the European Union was “a project of peace, of reconciliation, of social justice.”

Nations such as Egypt, where trade with the Israelis has barely suffered a blip, managed to rip into the Israelis while possibly being among this countries that Netanyahu was referring to when saying they were privately thanking him for his genocidal activities.

Of course Netanyahu is a pathological liar so it’s always hard to believe a single word he says, but I have to say this one had a ring of truth to it — evidenced by the almost complete lack of practical support by most nations in the region for the Palestinians.

But structural change — as important as it obviously is — represents only part of what is needed. A fundamental mindset revolution is also required to actually allow the UN to do its job as set out in the organisation’s excellent Charter.

The UN should be so much better than it is and this is why China’s Global Governance Initiative is so vital right now.

The GGI has five key principles.

The first is the importance of national sovereignty.

It upholds the principle that all countries have the right to independently choose their social systems and development paths, and to equally participate in decision-making and benefit from and contribute to global governance.

Secondly, the GGI underlines the importance of abiding by the international rule of law.

It calls for international law and rules to be applied equally and not to be replaced by made up standards that are designed to profit any individual country.

Thirdly, the GGI promotes multilateralism through the spirit of mutual understanding and advocates extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits in global affairs.

Fourth, the GGI advocates a people-centred approach. It makes a point that really shouldn’t need saying — but clearly does — that people of all nations are the fundamental participants and beneficiaries of global governance.

Fifth, the GGI highlights the need for action rather than just words. It stresses that the effectiveness of global governance must be measured by the real problems it solves.

Put another way — actions speak louder than words.

The GGI does not seek to create an alternative system to that which includes the UN. The idea, rather, is to make the current system actually do what it is supposed to do, enabling it to step up to the massive challenges facing the world and to better serve the interests of all countries, especially developing nations.

The importance of the GGI in setting out the framework for a new system of governance cannot be underestimated. But it didn’t just emerge from some think tank buried deep somewhere in Beijing.

This is the result of deep discussions with developing nations — the global majority. It represents a rejection of vast swathes of the planet of the current way of doing things and a demand for a new settlement.

But China’s GGI, Global Security and Civilisations Initiatives are themselves a continuation of decades of Chinese geopolitical strategy.

The five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, launched by legendary Chinese premier Zhou Enlai in 1954 — mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity; mutual non-aggression; mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs; equality and mutual benefit; and peaceful coexistence, remain the cornerstone of China’s foreign policy.

But this is also all based on the solid foundation of thousands of years of Chinese philosophy blended with Marxist thought.

I will return to this in more detail in the coming weeks but for now we just need to be clear that the global majority is demanding a change from the current neocolonial and racist system of global governance and no half-measures will do.