The top United Nations envoy in Afghanistan (Tom Koenigs) today condemned the "heinous" attack on a school which killed six children and wounded 14 other people. He called for the end of such atrocities against the youngsters of the violence-torn country.
"We know that all Afghan communities and the entire international community will join us in condemning this atrocity."
If the U.N. ever actually did anything at all, took any action of any kind to stop, prevent or punish this kind of thing, I might have a shred of confidence in it's ability to represent the interests of the nations who genuinely desire peace and prosperity for their people. All the U.N. does is "condemn" this atrocity or that or "strongly urge action" in this third-world, war-torn country or that.
Then when Britain and Australia, led by the U.S. military finally do something successful toward putting a stop to the atrocities, the U.N. is the first body to complain about unilateral action or U.S. imperialism. "Give diplomacy a chance", they whine; meanwhile thousands of men, women, and children perish because of the U.N.'s failure to act.
Here's my take on the U.N.: With some exceptions, namely the representatives of the three countries named above and scant few others, the U.N. is comprised of sniveling, self-interested bureaucratsrats who have no compelling interests to do anything but maintain the status quo around the world and enjoy the trappings of living with diplomatic immunity in New York City.
It is the most corrupt organization in world history by any measure. Otherwise explain how Iran can gain a seat on the committee for disarmament, or how Libya can sit on the human rights committee? By and large, most of these representatives are there to advance their own country's agendas and to protect it's interests, not to join together and do what's right.
If anybody reading this has a valid argument justifying the U.S.'s blind participation in, and obedient bankrolling of, the U.N., I would love to have my mind changed. As it stands, I would like nothing more than for the U.N. to move to Brussels and the U.S. simply send a delegation....maybe even for the U.S. to pull out alltogether.
The only advantage I can maybe see is the need to keep an eye on the other nations so they don't cause too much trouble...trouble with international consent, such as might happen if the U.N. were in Europe somewhere. The "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" axiom seems to apply to the relationship between the U.S. and the U.N.
Other than that, what possible good comes from our membership?