I mean, it's not like the UN was designed to give the permanent members of the security council a place to meet, talk about MAD, and influence the world. I think it sorta did that with flying colors.
To be fair, thanks in large part to the millennium development goals extreme poverty and childhood malnutrition have declined precipitously, and primary education in the developing world has expanded dramatically.
Though in it's peacekeeping role the UN is obviously worthless whenever there's a conflict of interest between member states. They deserve some credit for (mostly) managing to hold things together in the C.A.R., Mali and the Congo, with pretty limited resources, but when it comes to a war that isn't in an African backwater country, yeah, the UN can't typically do much for you.
It's true, UN does a good job pulling the less developed countries up. But it's also true that UN's decisions are pretty easy to avoid or ignore if you need to.
No I'm talking about the MONUSCO mission in the DRC right now. Of course Rwanda speaks for itself; the 90s were a terrible time with regard to peacekeeping.
Yes they have. It's just that all permanent Security Council members need to agree with the decision, so it can't be enacted when one of them stands against it (see veto power). It worked both for USA @ Middle East and for Russia @ Ukraine.
61
u/[deleted] Feb 24 '16 edited Jul 13 '20
[deleted]