Fails in the United Nations Essay Example
560,000 people were mercilessly killed during the Syrian civil war, and the UN failed to do their job and save them (Haaretz). The UN exists for the sole purpose of keeping peace worldwide, but when the time has come they have repeatedly failed leaving thousands of people at risk. The UN was established in 1945 after World War 2 as a way to combat violence (What We Do.). Despite good intentions, the UN is an outdated system that creates false hope for those at risk, uses funds ineffectively, and is in dire need of ameliorating, therefore, it should be completely reformed.
Not only does the UN provide false hope by coming to areas of distress and subsequently leaving when in danger, but they don’t take accountability in these scenarios causing an even greater controversy. For instance, in Rwanda, the UN’s ignorance was a crucial factor in the massacring of over 100,000 innocent people. The organization fell short in acting upon obvious signs of the coming genocide, and left Rwanda and its citizens in the dark for months before returning (Henderson). Another similar occasion was in Srebrenica in 1995 when the UN claimed there to be safe areas. One of these so called safe areas was later attacked. Thousands of the victims were in the area because it was deemed safe by the UN. So many people had false hopes of security from the UN and died because of it. The UN is causing more harm than good, and should seize to exist in the way it currently does.
Moreover, the UN has been ineffective in using billions of dollars of funding. The UN has relied on an annual budget of over $7,000,000,000 since 2015, and the money hasn’t gone towards many successful endeavors (Financing Peacekeeping. United Nations Peacekeeping.). Despite donations of materials and soldiers from countless countries among major contributions from the five permanent members of the UN, The finances aren’t meeting expectations. As stated previously, the UN has a history of not always succeeding, and it is remarkably risky to put billions of dollars towards an unreliable association. Likewise, the amount contributed by various UN members varies significantly, adding to the already growing tenseness between some countries in the IN such as Russia and the USA. There’s a high risk factor considering the discrepancies in donation value between countries in the UN. For example, the USA provides 28.57% of UN funding as a permanent member while Russia - another permanent member- contributes only 4.01% of total funding (Financing Peacekeeping. United Nations Peacekeeping.). This inequality is doing precisely the opposite of what the UN stands for, and is causing nothing but trouble.
Finally, the UN is in dire need of ameliorating. The UN obviously has good intentions, but has simply been executed poorly. This can be seen in the evidence of multiple UN agreements ultimately falling through. Most notably, this occurred with a climate change agreement in 2009 where nothing ended up changing, as well as a nuclear weapon treaty in 1970 which has obviously done little to prevent the production of said weapons (Davidge). Additionally, all permanent members of the UN are given veto power allowing them to object and intervention or proposal even if all other parties comply. This has subsequently resulted in Russia, not once, but twice, objecting to UN intervention in the Syrian War (Davidge). The UN’s issues were again made obvious during warfare in Somalia, where deployed soldiers were subjected to great pain and torture, and eventually killed. After this tragic occasion the UN left the scene later referring to it as their “greatest failure,” (Henderson). The UN has many undesirable qualities and must be significantly altered.
What about successes?
In contrast, those in favor of the UN argue that they have had many successes. Although true, the shockingly high number of failures outweigh the successes, and make the UN simply not worth it. Overall, the impact of the UN’s failures have eclipsed that of the successes, therefore making them irrelevant. Still, many believe that the UN is, in fact, a cost effective way to keep peace. This is simply untrue, although small compared to the entirety of other military organizations. The UN is an unnecessary organization ridding countries of money that should be directly put towards people in need or international aid. By abolishing the UN we are taking preventive measure in reducing the risk of further disagreement. Finally, many people the UN is modern and effective enough to continue without reform, however, this has proven to be incorrect because of the very low level of commitment to the UN each country has. Agreements fall through, representatives abuse veto power, and the system is an all around mess. In order to really keep the peace it is absolutely crucial to completely reform the UN.
In closing, the UN is a poorly executed attempt at peace in dire need of reform. Said reform is absolutely necessary to protect the lives of thousands of soldiers, the economy of numerous countries, and the dignity of countries at unrest. The UN has so much potential to do good, and with improvement, it will do just that. With a significant reform, the UN will become a thriving organization to alas achieve the original goal of world peace.