Is the United Nations really so corrupt and ineffectual?

Question

I hear all the time in American media that the UN is corrupt and ineffectual. But I am wondering if the news media of other countries also portray them that way. I am also wondering if it is true. I know there have been scandals and corruption. But is it an ongoing thing or a few isolated incidents? And even if true, does the United Nations also do some good? Their own web site lists 60 things they do. But it is hard to find information from unbiased sources. Sources are usually either trying to bash the UN or promote them. What is the truth?

tonalc2 · Accepted Answer

Conservatives have always hated the UN. One illustration of this is the man who said this: "There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." was appointed US ambassador to the UN by Bush. 

And they continue to talk about the "miasma of corruption" in the UN. 

Could it be more effectual? Yes. Is the structure of a permanent Security Council with veto ability less than inclusive? Yes. Could there be restructuring? Yes. Is the overview of large programs inefficient? Sometimes. Waste and abuse? Not more than any other large organization. 

Do we need a global organization to solve global problems? Absolutely.

Is the United Nations really so corrupt and ineffectual?

Related Questions

Trending Questions