Agreed there is a lot of things wrong with the UN, but don't discount the vast amount of good things they do. From international standardization, and cooperation on things like air travel, shipping, and more recently road vehicles. They are involved in many humanitarian efforts like peacekeeping, disaster relief and health care. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
There may have been some good things that have been done under the banner of the U.N. I guess to me the question is, would the stuff still have gotten done had the U.N. not existed.
Yes, there have been several successful U.N. peacekeeping missions... but if the U.N. didn't exist, its possible that other organizations would step up to fulfill the mission. For example, peacekeeping in Somalia was largely done by the African Union (they were acting with the permission of the U.N. security council, but it was still largely an A.U. mission.)
And yes, there have been U.N. humanitarian missions. But plenty of international aid gets provided directly by donor countries, and without U.N., donor countries could increase the amount of direct aid.
Something like the World Health Organization does good work, but they could possibly be established as an independent organization (with a membership that reflects the current U.N.)
Home
Contact
Login
Register