Today, the U.N. is more important than ever — not only for the vast majority of the world's peoples, but also for the totality of the world's states — including its most powerful. Indeed, as it has matured over 50 years; the U.N. has become — unevenly, imperfectly, but unmistakably — the only place where the world can come together to pool strengths and share burdens. It is true that some of the institutional machinery is in need of overhaul. Yet, by many measures, the U.N. is an extraordinary success. It provided an indispensable mechanism for ending colonialism and helping to manage the transition for many states to independence. It has become the centrepiece of global efforts to tackle complex transnational problems in such areas as health, the environment, chronic poverty and deprivation. Moreover, it is at the heart of the work of generations to promote human rights on a global scale and in more recent decades to help people recover from the devastation of war. Perhaps most important, it has become the essential means to create the political and physical space necessary for difficult problems to be resolved in ways short of war. The U.N. provides a place for dialogue, deliberation, and diplomacy. Indeed, it is the only global arena where nations can in peace air grievances, confront opponents, craft solutions, and marshal resources that (almost inevitably) require the help of others. Many disputes between and within states unleash violence that cannot be neatly confined to those in the fight. To deal with the wider threats posed by such violence, U.N. member states have given special responsibilities to the Security Council, whose deliberations and decisions are largely now matters of open record. The U.N. has, in effect, made possible unprecedented transparency and a new sense of accountability among those who decide the world's most momentous issues. Such transparency and accountability can only be welcomed. In an earlier era (well within living memory for many of the world's citizens) gravely important matters were often decided in back rooms where napkins substituted for map sheets and impressions substituted for understanding. In secret, sometimes capricious deals, narrow, even transient, political interests were frequently traded in equal weight with the enduring fate of millions. The U.N. is also a place for action, not only when crisis looms, but also every day, in the face of the steady — and long-term — demand for development assistance, humanitarian aid, refugee protection, essential health services, environmental preservation, and countless other chores that lie beyond the capacities of governments to handle on their own. Such needs are nearly overwhelming and the U.N. provides both the framework and machinery to initiate and sustain the international efforts to make real progress in these areas. Such mechanisms are superior to an environment where co-operation is ad hoc and where states are thus forced to confront every problem as if for the first time. Moreover, in addition to its substantive strengths and legitimacy, the U.N. has established links with other international organizations with means to help and it has become well practiced in drawing on the vast array of resources, talent, and commitment in the worldwide nongovernmental community. Preventing the emergence of widespread violence, and helping to create capable societies with security, well-being, and justice, based on the rule of law, is a big job. These aims depend on integrating political, economic, and social strategies and rely on the comparative advantages of governments, international institutions, as well as the nongovernmental and for-profit private sectors. While U.N.-organized interventions have not been without their problems, no better repository of experience, expertise, and legitimacy exists to pull all of this together. War has come again in Iraq. A military victory alone will not yield the desired results of the Iraqi people and the wider region no longer menaced by a tyrant and a world no longer held hostage to his whims. In many respects, when the shooting ends, the real work will just begin, to help create a capable society in Iraq where representative governance, widespread economic opportunity, and the rule of law prevail. The U.N. is essential to secure the kind of peace that will help prevent the emergence of instability and opportunism that could scourge the region for generations and demonstrate clearly that it is possible to reverse the chronic conditions of deprivation and discrimination where terror sinks its root. In this way, success in the war in Iraq links to success in the global war on terror. Even beyond Iraq, states must join efforts to help create capable societies in the world's forgotten corners — with help to build the political, economic, and social structures that the people themselves choose and that permit them to manage thei

Exaimine the Oil for food scandal. Sudamn Hussian bribed Jacque Chirac and other leading politicians in the EU, telling them that they will get the best oil feilds in IRaq for voting NO agianst the American resolution to go to war. That my friends is why i say F the UN b/c they try to tell us (every one) whom to attack and they are fully capable of being Bribed. Why does such a 'worthy' and 'Noble' orginaization like the UN have such corruption at the hightes levels of its orignization? I think the UN is no longer needed or has it ever been needed. The UN tries to tell ppl who they can attack and who not to... Why should the UN have ANY say on American Intrests? It is the job of every govenrment to portect its citizens and to ensure National Intrest. The UN has no right to interven. I.E. when they tried to stop America from Attacking Iraq... and ppl every where are saying that this war is ilegal b/c the UN didnt approve... News Flash; this war is fully lagitamet, At the end of the 1994 gulf war there was a cease fire agreement, not an end to a war like the treaty of versillies that ended WW1. The Agreement stated that if Sudamn Hussian would not allow the inspectors in his counrty, then the war would be contined. Since that time Sudman has viloated 14 resolutions from the UN more than justifying our presance in Iraq.

Read the history of the League of Nations, then take an objective look at the United Nations. The League of Nations failed to protect Europe and Asia from WWII, the United Nations will follow its example and fail to prevent WWIII in the Middle East. People who fail to look at history, fail to recognize the lessons it teaches us, those people usually live to repeat it. Sadly, with all the education on the planet, because people intentionally choose not to believe what they see, we will not learn from the lessons available via the history books.

The US regected the LON becouse they saw the WW2 coming, but the US is soley responsible for the existance of the UN. UN preveanted a ww in Korea. The gulf war was UN. UN helps in economics. The UN helps the little people. The rich think willfare as useless while the poor se it as a life saver.

Not sure why the revelance of this post. The UN has always been a corrupt organization. Admrial Kirk

I have worked with the UN at the RESREP/FC level in peacekeeping and observer missions and I have also observed operations by the UNHCR, WFP, and UNICEF. I have attended the Kofi Annan Intnl. Peacekeeping Training Center in Accra. The other departments are a mystery to me (and to most other I think). All of my experiences have been in Africa and Asia. Possibly, this experience qualifies me to make a comment? The issues I have with the UN have little to do with its charter and the role it is supposed to have in the world today. I think the security council is somewhat balanced and has contributed to stopping small wars from growing into large wars. My problems are with the bureocratic part of the UN vs. the member states (general assembly). The career UN'ites (lol) will gladly step forward and take credit for many things that simply have nothing to do with the UN. This is especially apparent in the peacekeeping arena. However, if there is a failure, it is always the fault of those squabbling member states and certainly had nothing to do with the UN staff. The payoff for any UN sponsored mission (excepting UNHCR and UNICEF programs) is typically very low. The DPKO was criticized for not allowing GEN. Dellaire (sic) to have an internal intelligence capacity during the Rwanda crisis. It is now 12 years down the road and guess what? No intel capability for UN Missions. To me, this type of 'progress' does not signify a proactive organization. The UN spends a huge sum of money on PR these days. I don't think that was ever the intention of the charter. It was to be a forum where member states could work things out and contribute to regional crisis as they arose. It has now occupied its own niche and developed departments to 'help' member states deal with things. I can't stress this point enough-THESE PEOPLE ARE BY FAR THE MOST INCOMPETENT, OVERPAYED, INDIVIDUALS THAT I HAVE EVER HAD TO WORK WITH IN MY ENTIRE CAREER! They make ENRON look efficient. A small vignette for your consideration. In October 2004, a military mutiny occured in Guinea-Bissau. In early 2005 I sat down with the RESREP and his deputy to help figure out a solution for situation (how to bring the government back). The meeting consisted of 10 minutes of sympathy for the people in the countryside and many calls for 'multi-lateral action', then 30 minutes of how best to buy retirement property in Mozambique, and finally 30 minutes on how to get money to repair the generator at the UN compound. They are also very territorial. One should attend a meeting between a regional organization (ie: ECOWAS) and the UN to get a sense of just how ridiculously competitive they are. I suspect that if this organization feels the need to compete with regional bodies it has likely strayed from it's original charter and has (by default) become irrelevent. If you can't see these points: 1) You likely work for the UN or 2) You have never observed them in operation. I say that if they don't adopt these new reforms, then it is time to disolve the charter and start another organization.

Our renew the charter. the charter was based on the world of yesterday, not today and definatly not tommarrow. They should constantly change and "evoulve" as the geopolitical climet changes.

UN Sex Crimes in Congo http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4156819.stm Oil For Food (read the whole thing) http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4267109 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_for_food UN Human Rights Commission (The Greatest UN Joke going) http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/12/8/141840.shtml http://www.fidh.org/article.php3?id_article=1066 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights More Corruption Probes and other Miscellaneous Items http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31871 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4241724.stm You know Mex I could spend all day Googling "United Nations Corrupt" and other variations and fill pages of links to articles and forums who talk endlessly on the subject. If you want to know the truth do the rest of the research, there is ALOT more out there.

Agreed. I am not sure if the system will be able to do that. I am watching how these 'reforms' are adopted to gauge this. Good point.

In my view the UN is not only corrupt but useless. The world would not change if there would be no UN. Maybe even it would be easier to solve some problems. Some useful UN-tasks (like UNICEF)could be done by follow on organisations. If you have to many decisiion makers there will be no decisions at all. So in the security council there will be always a veto power to stop any action as long as this paricular nation sees an advantage in it (and to harm others is seen as an advantage). The UN should moderate discussions between member states. That's why Mr. Annan is called a secretary. He should serve the member states. But the UN plays politics of its own without any democratic legitimation. I just can't accept that the worlds cruelst dictators have any legal vote anywhere. Those dictators do not speak for any people but for themselves. The UN even did put states like Libya and Irak in charge to control UN-boards for disarment and human rights. I suggest that the world should end the UN-nonsense and build some follow on organisations (maybe private public partnership organisations). The real decisions will be make - as alwayss - by powerful states (China, US, Russia, India, some times ahead Brasil,...) and organisations (EU). And an end to the UN-fake will be a win for honsesty too.