UN continues to disappoint
It falls far short of accomplishing what its founders intended
Like the its predecessor, the League of Nations, the United Nations was supposed to be a decisive mechanism to keep the peace. It has fallen far short of that goal.
Perhaps the most serious non-nuclear crisis in the world today is the civil war gripping Yemen. Violence there appears to be escalating
But U.N. leaders are took some action this month. The Associated Press reported that, “The United Nations is urging an immediate halt to fighting in Yemen’s capital …”
We can only wonder what the reaction of the warring parties, some of them militias backed by Iran, was to that. It certainly was not to lay down their weapons as they quaked in their boots over the thought of disobeying the U.N.
Even when the U.N. does take what, by its standards, is decisive action, the results usually are less than desirable. Blue-helmeted U.N. “peacekeepers” seem to frighten no one. And, on occasion, “peacekeeping” forces from some nations have terrorized local populations more than the warring parties they were sent in to counteract.
The U.N. has become a gigantic empire unto itself, wasting enormous amounts of money even on programs intended to improve public health. Despite the lack of frugality, however, some of those efforts do have useful results.
In terms of its core mission, keeping the peace, the U.N. has is accomplishing very little. It can be debated whether, under the organization’s current model, anything can be done to improve the situation.
Its defenders often argue that, at least, the U.N. is better than nothing. Possibly, but it’s not much better than nothing. That’s especially sad given the high hopes so many had for this organization when it was created more than seven decades ago.