Why The United Nations is a Useless Failure
The main purpose for the United Nations (U.N.) is to resolve issues between countries through diplomacy before countries resort to military force and before conflicts escalate. Unfortunately, the U.N. has consistently failed this goal and will continue being useless for these several reasons.
First, the United Nations is primarily a forum for debate. As a result, the U.N. is an international organization where countries send representatives to argue for or against issues. These representatives are typically just spokesmen for their country's agendas and are relatively powerless in their own country. Furthermore, countries governed by non-peaceful dictators and regimes typically use these debates to delay and obfuscate issues in their favor. Over the fifty years that the United Nations has existed, these debates alone have not resolved a single issue. Direct military actions, back room negotiations, and threats, that were not sponsored by the United Nations, have had the only real positive affects for change.
For instance, Iraq was under U.N. backed economic trade sanctions for over a decade. As a result, the Iraqi people suffered greatly while Saddam Hussein continued playing games with the United Nations by only periodically allowing inspections for weapons of mass destruction, inconsistent disarmament of known weapons, and illegally finding ways around the oil for food agreements that the U.N. imposed. As a result, economic sanctions were an abyssal failure. Only the United States of America had the courage of breaking this stalemate that had the Iraqi people caught in the middle. Yet again, the United Nations is considering this same “solution” that has never worked to be used against North Korea because of its nuclear weapons program and testing. And Iran is keeping a close eye on what the world does to North Korea, since Iran has similar nuclear ambitions for their non-peaceful agenda too.
Second, the United Nations is unable to take direct and independent actions without support from its members. In other words, the U.N. is completely powerless and pacifistic. In a world filled with war-mongering dictators and suppressing regimes who know the U.N. lacks any real power, regimes are almost completely free to do whatever they want. For example, North Korea has tested nuclear weapons and threatens to do so again, with the United Nations only considering sanctions.
The only solution that I can imagine is for each country that is a member of the United Nations to equally contribute a military force or equivalent money to the United Nations. And the United Nations could use these resources without approval from any individual country. As you can imagine, this is not likely going to ever happen.
Third, the United Nations has five nations that can veto any resolution that the majority of the U.N. members agreed upon. The countries with this veto power are China, France, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. These countries have this power because they were the founding countries of the United Nations that wrote the rules for the U.N. after World War 2. Unfortunately, this non-democracy fails for several reasons. First, only a true democracy among nations is unbiased and fair. Thus, the complete structure of the U.N. needs a major overhaul. This too is not likely to happen, since the countries with vetoing power are unlikely to unanimously agree to give up this right for fairness sake.
Additionally, since a lot of the countries in the United Nations are not for peace, these nations have very questionable voting practices. The only possible solution is to deny voting rights for non-peace loving nations. This includes any non-free and non-democratic country who would be biased towards dictators and regimes. I do not think that the U.N. is capable of only allowing free countries the right to vote. This is contradictory to the purpose of the United Nations, since nations would only debate in the forum of the United Nations if they can vote in the Security Council of the U.N. Similarly, the United Nations prides itself as an international humanitarian group, yet allows non-humanitarian members, such as China, to continue having voting rights on humanitarian issues, even though these countries greatly suppress and ignore the humanitarian rights of their own people too. This would further reduce the number of members capable of voting. Again, this is not likely to happen.
The fourth and final reason why the United Nations is useless is terrorism. The U.N. does not formally recognize any country as a terrorist state. Furthermore, terrorists are not interested in the politics of debating in a public forum, such as the United Nations, to discuss and work out their issues. Therefore, the U.N. does not get involved in politics with terrorist groups. As a result, the United Nations is completely blind to terrorist groups, has no plans of address terrorism, and has no intentions of changing. The fact that the United Nations, as the largest international organization that promotes peace, is completely unable to address terrorism is further proof that the U.N. is ineffective.
In conclusion, the United Nations has proven itself as a failure for its entire history and will continue being useless. Maybe if peaceful countries withdraw their membership and stop participating in the United Nations in protest, will force the United Nations to abandon its old methods of dealing with non-peaceful and non-humanitarian nations.
by Phil for Humanity