The UN is too old to have ‘potential’
Image by Stokpic, Pixabay
An octogenarian shouldn’t, by rights, be treated this way. In its 80th year, the United Nations began its big week feeling rather poorly. And then, its lead supporter, the United States, caused the oldie goldie to shrivel further by pouring scorn on its efforts.
Donald Trump offered a harsh assessment of the United Nations during the organisation’s 80th birthday week, saying it had failed to live up to its “tremendous potential”.
This, he said, because it had done nothing to end the wars raging in disparate parts of the world. The US president declared that all the UN does is to issue “empty words”. Interestingly, Mr Trump’s Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, was almost as scathing despite the UN enfolding his war-wracked nation in sympathetic embrace since Russia’s full-scale invasion. Mr Zelensky criticised UN inaction, decrying its propensity to deliver “just statements and statements”.
It’s true that at least four hot conflicts are tragically front and centre of our collective consciousness:
Other lower-grade conflicts linger on, seemingly without a magic passkey that would allow resolution:
- Yemen
- Haiti
- Myanmar
- Not to mention the criss-crossing lines of affinity and antipathy in Syria, while Israel remains a strong and unconstrained force across the region
But hang on a minute. Isn’t the UN’s authority no more than what its members bequeath to it?
And isn’t the powerful, veto-wielding, five-member Security Council ensuring that the UN can never take any decisive action on any conflict?
Russia and China can veto a decision on Ukraine.
The US can veto anything on Palestine.
Why hammer the UN when it’s a pretty accurate picture of the world as it is?
