Why I think the UN is dreadfully broken

Time for a Churchill quote:

"There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away. The British people can face peril or misfortune with fortitude and buoyancy, but they bitterly resent being deceived or finding that those responsible for their affairs are themselves dwelling in a fool's paradise."

- Winston Churchill, quoted in this review (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.meacham.html) of Ripples of Battle by Victor Davis Hanson


This strikes at the heart of my unhappiness with the UN, and my impatience with its apologists -- we keep getting asked to trust the UN do perform this or that task, and it reliably fails at the task, often with tremendously tragic consequences.

My correspondent Marty's example is perfect:  The UN makes a promise to refugees by
setting up a "safe area" -- and then fails to uphold the promise. Repeatedly.

If the UN or the individuals or nations setting up the "safe area" would just be honest, and say "we're setting up a collection point for refugees, but we won't defend you -- we're just making it easier for your attackers to find you" then I'd be much less upset.

The inability to defend may not be the UN's fault.  But the lying about it is very much the UN's fault.  The subsequent bloodbath is at least partly the UN's fault, as enablers.

The corruption of the UN's Oil for Food program is the UN's fault.

The unwillingness of the UN's apologists to be honest about the UN's flaws makes reforming the UN harder or impossible, so the persistence of these flaws is at least partly the apologists' fault, as enablers.

The UN's stated goals are in many cases my own goals or desires as well.   But if the UN as it *actually* exists is getting in the way of those goals or making things worse, then defending the UN's dysfunction is *impeding* those goals.

Honesty on this point is crucial.  No fix can occur before one admits a  thing is broken.