I actually did some work at the UN in 1985 and believed that the organization was hopelessly bureaucratic. We used to spend most of the week partying out in Southhampton (during the 121 days of summer when I was there).
A lot of the UN public relations efforts would be to shame countries into giving more money while deflecting questions about how such monies were being spent with “Don’t you care about the poor? developing world? children? women? etc. etc.” when in reality, most delegates were very keen to keep their upper east side digs, cars, unpaid parking tickets, high per diems, etc. rather than be sent back to Luanda, Lusaka or Lagos. Corruption was rife as was theft, cronyism, embezzlement.
That said, what is the difference between the UN and a lot of other governments, agencies. Look at the health care systems in many countries, public school systems in the US and other countries, etc. Many agencies are just as bad as the UN. Most public school administrations, departments waste 50 cents on the dollar. I am not sure how high it is for the UN but it varies at around 65 to 70 cents on the dollar in the agencies that I am familiar with (UNESCO), etc.
So do we need a UN? Or is it just another case of the “Road to Hell is paved with good intentions?” Seriously, many people talk about the UN, defending it as an “idea” when they have little to no knowledge about just what the organization is involved. Many nations are corrupt dictatorships that get equal votes to Western democracies which respect human rights. After 18 years of seeing some pretty pathetic things, I am forced to give it:
Both thumbs down!