Question-mark sub-part of the authors' title is more challenging than might otherwise be appreciated. Frankly, another question must be raised: What could The UN have done, thinking of the real power it doesn't have? Like others we come across often, who lament - wishing The UN could have the power it should, David Held explains ("Global challenges: accountability and effectiveness" (oD 17 January 2008) why the wishes are hard to fulfil in spite of the governance innovations of recent decades, which could equip it with more real power to live-up-to its global challenges and expectations. Held's primary point is: "weak and fragmented global-governance system" tend to stifle authoritative involvement due to "complex unbundling of sovereignty, territoriality and political forces", best evident in the plurality of actors, a variety of political processes, and diverse levels of co-ordination and operation.

The UN has been portrayed in many different ways. That we all know. It does achieve a lot of the good and so further peace and progress. But, should we settle thereafter to make a sense of it in the global financial crisis - we are entering into trouble waters! Like operative political values, especially at nation states' and regional levels wittingly or unwittingly put limits on UN operative frames, so too we are likely to equivocally argue that so-called economic modus operandi - values] promise not to relax the limits. In all as independent or interdependent areas, surely we see the impact of governance innovations. The hope in "the opportunity" referred to by both authors might in the long-run mature through such an impact.

That the burdens of political and economic systems constrain the operational functions of The UN: world organization] hence alarm expectations of peoples in various parts of the world should warn about real achievements or failures attributed to activities of various small and larger group world summit meetings, all resulting lessons, tied particularly to the meltdowns and the impacts on ODA and ODI, remain parts of above burdens. Why ECOSOC, for example, might not have played a significant role in tackling current financial crisis could be hard to separate from the general state of world politics and economics as we know, sympathize with or criticize - for want of best way to align and change. The legitimacy of IFIs, their modus-operandi, as a realization of the best ways to use investments as a part of the equalizing tool in search of balance and sustainable development in the world, might have to be seen beyond technical efficiency or interests, to convince about the moral integrity of its functions.

It is nice to note in the paper that its authors agree that one of the ways to keep abreast on interrelated issues is for the UN to actively coordinate dialogues on country-development models: country case-study routines to support world sustainable development. Impossible to say how many readers of this paper closely focus on: "exit strategies" from the present crisis. Similarly impossible to say how readers of the paper respond to cited individuals and all the references listed. Personally, I feel the joy to have focused on the exhilarating interview with Paul Krugman - the Nobel Prize Economist]. Since the current 'much-talked and written about meltdown' gained an extraordinary foothold alongside the US presidential election campaigns, we are living to see culminations upon culminations. There might be other interpretations and summaries of history of the crisis and so also opinions about "exit strategies". Someone might argue: whatever - are un-free from politics, values and technical strategies. I wouldn't argue any differently and yet it strikes me pragmatic and sane to see Paul Krugman, well embedded in history of this economic ailment, shy-not-away in his favor for 'regulation' instead of 'deregulation'. Not only that, so let me quote from the said interview: to stress on why I admire his argument: "...... All of that is true. I have a more mundane view about what we do. I just want a stronger welfare state, and a little bit more social democracy. And some restoration of the labour movement as a counterweight. I'm not sure - maybe I'm just not thinking about it deeply enough. I guess I've got the same attitude Keynes had, which was he was looking for almost technical fixes. You're looking for ways to fix the parts that have gone wrong rather than replace the whole thing....."

Many have been critical against raw capitalism and greed, and for that reason agitated for system overhaul of various undefined dimensions. What do you expect in the heat of confusion. Now we take the time to calm down and note that the profuse leak in our house is possible to fix by calling in plumbers. Don't miss it, we must also have mindset plumbers! The UN future, doubt me not lies partly here!

Question-mark sub-part of the authors' title is more challenging than might otherwise be appreciated. Frankly, another question must be raised: What could The UN have done, thinking of the real power it doesn't have? Like others we come across often, who lament - wishing The UN could have the power it should, David Held explains ("Global challenges: accountability and effectiveness" (oD 17 January 2008) why the wishes are hard to fulfil in spite of the governance innovations of recent decades, which could equip it with more real power to live-up-to its global challenges and expectations. Held's primary point is: "weak and fragmented global-governance system" tend to stifle authoritative involvement due to "complex unbundling of sovereignty, territoriality and political forces", best evident in the plurality of actors, a variety of political processes, and diverse levels of co-ordination and operation.

The UN has been portrayed in many different ways. That we all know. It does achieve a lot of the good and so further peace and progress. But, should we settle thereafter to make a sense of it in the global financial crisis - we are entering into trouble waters! Like operative political values, especially at nation states' and regional levels wittingly or unwittingly put limits on UN operative frames, so too we are likely to equivocally argue that so-called economic modus operandi - values] promise not to relax the limits. In all as independent or interdependent areas, surely we see the impact of governance innovations. The hope in "the opportunity" referred to by both authors might in the long-run mature through such an impact.

That the burdens of political and economic systems constrain the operational functions of The UN: world organization] hence alarm expectations of peoples in various parts of the world should warn about real achievements or failures attributed to activities of various small and larger group world summit meetings, all resulting lessons, tied particularly to the meltdowns and the impacts on ODA and ODI, remain parts of above burdens. Why ECOSOC, for example, might not have played a significant role in tackling current financial crisis could be hard to separate from the general state of world politics and economics as we know, sympathize with or criticize - for want of best way to align and change. The legitimacy of IFIs, their modus-operandi, as a realization of the best ways to use investments as a part of the equalizing tool in search of balance and sustainable development in the world, might have to be seen beyond technical efficiency or interests, to convince about the moral integrity of its functions.

It is nice to note in the paper that its authors agree that one of the ways to keep abreast on interrelated issues is for the UN to actively coordinate dialogues on country-development models: country case-study routines to support world sustainable development. Impossible to say how many readers of this paper closely focus on: "exit strategies" from the present crisis. Similarly impossible to say how readers of the paper respond to cited individuals and all the references listed. Personally, I feel the joy to have focused on the exhilarating interview with Paul Krugman - the Nobel Prize Economist]. Since the current 'much-talked and written about meltdown' gained an extraordinary foothold alongside the US presidential election campaigns, we are living to see culminations upon culminations. There might be other interpretations and summaries of history of the crisis and so also opinions about "exit strategies". Someone might argue: whatever - are un-free from politics, values and technical strategies. I wouldn't argue any differently and yet it strikes me pragmatic and sane to see Paul Krugman, well embedded in history of this economic ailment, shy-not-away in his favor for 'regulation' instead of 'deregulation'. Not only that, so let me quote from the said interview: to stress on why I admire his argument: "...... All of that is true. I have a more mundane view about what we do. I just want a stronger welfare state, and a little bit more social democracy. And some restoration of the labour movement as a counterweight. I'm not sure - maybe I'm just not thinking about it deeply enough. I guess I've got the same attitude Keynes had, which was he was looking for almost technical fixes. You're looking for ways to fix the parts that have gone wrong rather than replace the whole thing....."

Many have been critical against raw capitalism and greed, and for that reason agitated for system overhaul of various undefined dimensions. What do you expect in the heat of confusion. Now we take the time to calm down and note that the profuse leak in our house is possible to fix by calling in plumbers. Don't miss it, we must also have mindset plumbers! The UN future, doubt me not lies partly here!

Question-mark sub-part of the authors' title is more challenging than might otherwise be appreciated. Frankly, another question must be raised: What could The UN have done, thinking of the real power it doesn't have? Like others we come across often, who lament - wishing The UN could have the power it should, David Held explains ("Global challenges: accountability and effectiveness" (oD 17 January 2008) why the wishes are hard to fulfil in spite of the governance innovations of recent decades, which could equip it with more real power to live-up-to its global challenges and expectations. Held's primary point is: "weak and fragmented global-governance system" tend to stifle authoritative involvement due to "complex unbundling of sovereignty, territoriality and political forces", best evident in the plurality of actors, a variety of political processes, and diverse levels of co-ordination and operation.

The UN has been portrayed in many different ways. That we all know. It does achieve a lot of the good and so further peace and progress. But, should we settle thereafter to make a sense of it in the global financial crisis - we are entering into trouble waters! Like operative political values, especially at nation states' and regional levels wittingly or unwittingly put limits on UN operative frames, so too we are likely to equivocally argue that so-called economic modus operandi - values] promise not to relax the limits. In all as independent or interdependent areas, surely we see the impact of governance innovations. The hope in "the opportunity" referred to by both authors might in the long-run mature through such an impact.

That the burdens of political and economic systems constrain the operational functions of The UN: world organization] hence alarm expectations of peoples in various parts of the world should warn about real achievements or failures attributed to activities of various small and larger group world summit meetings, all resulting lessons, tied particularly to the meltdowns and the impacts on ODA and ODI, remain parts of above burdens. Why ECOSOC, for example, might not have played a significant role in tackling current financial crisis could be hard to separate from the general state of world politics and economics as we know, sympathize with or criticize - for want of best way to align and change. The legitimacy of IFIs, their modus-operandi, as a realization of the best ways to use investments as a part of the equalizing tool in search of balance and sustainable development in the world, might have to be seen beyond technical efficiency or interests, to convince about the moral integrity of its functions.

It is nice to note in the paper that its authors agree that one of the ways to keep abreast on interrelated issues is for the UN to actively coordinate dialogues on country-development models: country case-study routines to support world sustainable development. Impossible to say how many readers of this paper closely focus on: "exit strategies" from the present crisis. Similarly impossible to say how readers of the paper respond to cited individuals and all the references listed. Personally, I feel the joy to have focused on the exhilarating interview with Paul Krugman - the Nobel Prize Economist]. Since the current 'much-talked and written about meltdown' gained an extraordinary foothold alongside the US presidential election campaigns, we are living to see culminations upon culminations. There might be other interpretations and summaries of history of the crisis and so also opinions about "exit strategies". Someone might argue: whatever - are un-free from politics, values and technical strategies. I wouldn't argue any differently and yet it strikes me pragmatic and sane to see Paul Krugman, well embedded in history of this economic ailment, shy-not-away in his favor for 'regulation' instead of 'deregulation'. Not only that, so let me quote from the said interview: to stress on why I admire his argument: "...... All of that is true. I have a more mundane view about what we do. I just want a stronger welfare state, and a little bit more social democracy. And some restoration of the labour movement as a counterweight. I'm not sure - maybe I'm just not thinking about it deeply enough. I guess I've got the same attitude Keynes had, which was he was looking for almost technical fixes. You're looking for ways to fix the parts that have gone wrong rather than replace the whole thing....."

Many have been critical against raw capitalism and greed, and for that reason agitated for system overhaul of various undefined dimensions. What do you expect in the heat of confusion. Now we take the time to calm down and note that the profuse leak in our house is possible to fix by calling in plumbers. Don't miss it, we must also have mindset plumbers! The UN future, doubt me not lies partly here!