|
quite simply... i don't think there are any ringing successes for the UN. that's not to say they haven't tried to better the world with great sincerity at times... just that there isn't anything you can point to that validates the UN as a completely necessary part of international relations.
just watched a BBC 2 hour special on the UN's third world assistance efforts. by the BBC's account, the programs have failed spectacularly in trying to stimulate local economies. the UN has done some good in humanitarian assistance, but there is corruption and little proof the job couldn't have been done more effectively by other avenues.
i think the UNs primary relevance left with the cold war. it was useful to have a table where both NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations could sit at with so much diplomatic posturing. the Soviets are gone and so is the UNs most vital role.
it appears the arenas where the UN could be of the most help (somalia, sudan, rwanda etc.) have been disappointments as far as their involvement goes. the idea that the UN has an inherent benelovence that is missing from national governments is silly. i firmly believe that all the third world assistance and humanitarian aid could be accomplished better by means of individual national contributions.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
~ Winston Churchill
|