THE TRUISM that actions speak louder than words will surely be borne out by President Bush’s surprise visit to Baghdad for Thanksgiving. That generous and legitimately bold gesture will dominate American news coverage indefinitely — or until Michael Jackson’s secret stash of hand-puppet gladiator movies is discovered — even though in two recent speeches, one of them in England, Mr Bush was far bolder in a more enduring sense. But, because so many people watch Bush’s speeches for the same reason they go to auto races — solely to see a crash — the public seems not to have noticed.

Mr Bush broke with 50 years of realist foreign policy to support freedom over stability. Aligning with tyrants made sense during the Cold War, he conceded, but it would be folly to cosy up to the same crapulent despotisms today, since it is precisely these regimes which foster terrorism.

Regardless, there’s still one impediment to a truly radical democratic revolution Mr Bush has yet to address: the United Nations. America still claims to support it. Indeed, the White House defends the war in Iraq as a fulfillment rather than a defiance of UN resolutions. Mr Bush even suggested he went to war to keep the UN relevant.

Whether he meant it or not, we should be fighting to make the UN irrelevant. First, let’s admit the obvious. The UN sucks. And before you start talking about the starving babies it saves and the thorns it pulls from cuddly creatures' paws, please remember that all sorts of awful institutions do good things. Hamas funds hospitals, Hitler built highways, Stalin improved literacy.

One can support many of the things the UN does without being in favour of the UN, just as being in favour of regular garbage collection doesn’t mean I have to be in favour of the state collecting it. If the government stopped picking up my trash, that wouldn’t mean my home would be swallowed up in bags of filth. And, if the UN stopped feeding starving people, that would hardly mean starving people would never be fed.

Secondly, the UN is not remotely democratic or representative in any noble sense. Yes, members vote. But voting by itself is meaningless. Think of the legendary “Commission” comprised of the heads of America’s leading Mafia families. The Commission votes — on whom to murder and extort. But we wouldn’t call that “democratic,” would we? Adding a few good guys — say, a cop or a nun — to the Commission doesn’t bolster its moral authority anymore than does adding some decent nations to the final tally of the UN General Assembly.

Worse still, the logic of the UN encourages the nastiest characters to be moral watchdogs. Not long ago the United States was thrown off the UN Human Rights Commission (HRC) to make room for Syria. Just as a mobster on the police force makes no sense, an institution dedicated to human rights and world peace with North Korea on the team just doesn’t work.

The UN has been declared “irrelevant” or “obsolete” more times than Betamax or 8-Track tapes and yet, like herpes, it just won’t go away. The reason is simple. There’s no alternative organisation.

My solution: Competition. Nato is searching for a mission raison d’être. Why not make it the military branch of a new international body, call it the League of Democracies, comprised solely of democratic nations? This would not be the “West against the rest”. India, Japan, Taiwan, Turkey, South Africa and other democratic nations would be welcome. Such an organisation would be able to speak with a more convincing moral voice, because it would share a vision, and it would be more able to take action when necessary. Americans might even countenance following its lead, whereas the idea of obeying the UN makes many of us release the safety latch on our rifles.

Because a League of Democracies would encourage intra-member trade and guarantee mutual defence, nations would face a stark choice of enjoying prosperity with the winners or suffering decline with the losers. The US needn’t quit the UN, just make it clear the League is where things really get done. Just talking about such a move might force the UN to get its act together. Or, even better, we could drive it out of business.

Join the Debate on this article via comment@thetimes.co.uk

Times Recommends

• Resist urge to throw voters red meat
• Slay sacred cows and be candid
• We cannot let these 100 deaths deflect us