The United Nations: Futile at Best
Through the last 60 years, the United Nations, as the premier international organization, has aimed to promote peace and facilitate a dialog between member nations in an attempt to prevent a third World War, and ultimately, achieve world peace. However, since its founding, the United Nations has proven to be, at best, a symbolic, superfluous collective that holds no applicable power (neither militaristically nor politically) and is rife with corruption. It would be in the best interest of not only the UN’s predominant donor, the United States, but also in the best interest of the UN itself to immediately disassemble for the following reasons: 1. The United Nation’s eminent lack of any applicable power both politically and militaristically 2. The abundant corruption present in the UN, including harm incited by the “peacekeeping force” (specifically in Rwanda), and the UN’s consequent refusal to address both specific and broader incidents of exploitations and malfeasances. 3. The proliferation of technology that has ensured globalization, rendering the United Nations unnecessary. The United Nations main goal, to prevent wars from occurring, has clearly not been effective in the past half-century. However, that is not to say that certain aspects of the United Nations aren’t useful. The UN Security Council, with the five permanent members (Russia, U.K., France, China, and the United States), has almost certainly played a role in the prevention of WWIII. However, those countries not in the “elite” membership of the UN have consistently been engaged in warfare despite the UN’s mission to attain World Peace. Ultimately, while certain aspects of the United Nations are helpful to the continuation of World Peace, the United Nations as an international coalition no longer serves a purpose and should be immediately eliminated.
As a wholly symbolic coalition, the UN holds no political power over any of its member countries. Sanctions imposed often hold no immediate or realistic consequences. In fact, there are no repercussions at all should a nation fail to report its standings regarding racial, gender, or other forms of equality to the United Nations, such as those required by the member nations that signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This lack of accountability have proved detrimental for the United Nations as many of these smaller, developing countries have no incentives to remain active in the organization as, excluding the five permanent members of the UN security council, many hold no sway or power. The member states are not answering to a larger body. This lack of applicable political power renders the United Nations, at least in its legislative matters, completely useless. Additionally, the UN’s military body, referred to as a “peacekeeping force”, often impose more harm than good. According to Nicole Leibow, a member of The Heritige Foundation, “Some of the U.N.’s darkest hours were the result of peacekeeping missions sent in the absence of a ceasefire or peace agreement.” In Mali, a highly unstable nation in which political uprisings are currently taking place, peacekeepers were sent to, as stated by the UN, “protect key population centres and support for the reestablishment of State authority throughout the country.” However, there is an inherent flaw in the assignment of these peacekeepers: How can peace be kept if, in fact, there is no peace to keep? To ensure that these armed forces are used properly--as a manner in which to maintain the stability of a region-- that same stability must already be established. Ultimately, it is important to note that the social ramifications of the inadequate political and militaristic policies have far reaching negative consequences, and thus the UN must abandon these tactics immediately.
Some of the strongest criticism against the UN came in response to an monstrosity that occurred