Why is the United Nations a failure?

Answer 1

If nations have different goals, different politics there is no way the united nation can do much.

First off, there are a few permanent council members with a veto right (USA, Russia, UK, France, China) and they dont have the same goals at all.

When it comes to Israel from instance, there is no way the USA would ever do something about it. When it comes to Korea then China will use its veto right (because both are communists among other reasons) and if it comes to some middle eastern countries Russia has interests.

Also, countries that are part of the UN dont care about it if it goes against their interests. Thats like joinning a club and only respecting the rules if they suit you.

The UN is a failure because many countries are just part of it to have a "good image", not to make the world a better, peaceful place to live in.

Answer 2

WOW! You've gotten some great answers (esp. purpleaura). But of course I have to add my 2c worth:

They're hypocrites. They claim that a legitimate government is, among other things, freely elected by the governed. Yet they recognize Communist China at the expense of Taiwan. How many nations have a vote in the UN that do not meet the above definition of a legitimate government?

Also, all these illigitimate nations get to vote to tie the hands of the UN. Remember--the only reason the UN went into North Korea was because the representative of the USSR got torqued off and walked out of the Security Council meeting, leaving the other four members to vote for the action. So the UN sinks to the lowest common denominator, which is pretty low.

It's staffed with bureaucrats.

Answer 3

How else could you describe the prospects of a group of almost 200 nations being able to instill peace and stability and communication amongst one another. Think about how often you agree with one person, let alone a couple hundred?

The UN doesn't answer to anyone, and therefore their legitimacy is in question out of the gate. The organization is not beholden to, nor responsible for, anyone. The membership is not voted in by people, but appointed by each government (in our nation, the appointment and confirmation are done by elected officials, who knows what goes on outside the U.S.).

The most telling reason that the UN fails in escapades of global peace is the organization's inability and outright refusal to judge right and wrong, and consequently provide just and enforced resolutions. It supports the rights of nations who don't support the rights of other nations. It defends those who need no defense and attacks the very nations that support it politically and financially.

There is a host of other reasons why the UN fails, but I think at the heart of it, the organization attempts to be a world unifier, and our planet is just too big, with too many divergent policies and interests from too many nations, for everyone to work together towards common goals. I think time will show that the world may not like large superpowers who undermine local sovereignty, but the way to prolonged and maybe sustainable peace is to have more and more of the world controlled and managed by fewer and fewer sovereign states. This provides a more robust check and balance system, which is more conducive to reduced warfare and deters otherwise combative cultures or regimes from instigating conflict, which may come at the cost of losing sovereignty themselves.

Answer 4

That will be evident they day (which is coming sooner than you realize) North Korea, Iran, and/or Venezuela attacks United States interest. They are all trading military secrets with each other to use against the United States very, very,very soon.

The UN was created to stop another WW from happening and it has already begun. So it is a failure.

Answer 5

is sort of a failure. the first united nation is really a failure the leauge of nation because united states didnt back it up. i think is little about bush fault because he didnt consent with them to go to war in iraq and colin powell just say this is a powder full of amthrax big deal. and un will say now where is the wmd. huh huh. and beside we put suddam in power during the 70s and 80s because they could stop the soviest but nope they turn agaisnt us because we got too greedy on oil

Answer 6

I gained't say failure yet, truthfully, they have not been completely valuable. The peacekeeping operations in my lifetime look to have executed ok (in the Balkans, and so on). inspite of the undeniable fact that, with challenge to human rights, there's a difficulty. places that are extremely valuable economically get a bypass. as an get at the same time, China is in the UN protection Council. they have veto power. they actually have an complete slew of annual Human Rights violations that merely type of bypass away. yet truthfully, what's the alternative? no longer something?

Answer 7

Is it a failure? Things like the world food organisation and the world health organisation aren't.
Things have only started to really go wrong, when a certain Secretary General took over and people started to make money out of the oil for food programme.

Answer 8

The UN is not a failure in places where International power politics is NOT involved. i.e Where the new and old superpowers collide to preserve their interests.

In other fields such as refugee protection and disease prevention (e.g. UNICEF, UNHCR, UNESCO etc )UN is a tremendous success story because in those matters UN is a place where eveyone unite.

Answer 9

I definately won't say it's a failure. Sure, there's some rough spots in its history, but 99% of the time, it's doing a great job.

Answer 10

The United Nations does not have the balls to do anything, in fear of upsetting one of the 120 countrys involved in the UN.