Is the UN a Useless Organization?

WWII was the real reason that the US, the UK, and the Soviet Union formed the original UN declaration. The document was signed by 26 countries in January 1942 and lead to the creation of the official UN in 1945, as a formal act of opposition to Germany, Italy, and Japan, the Axis Powers.

The United Nations, an international organization, was officially founded at the UN Conference on international organization in San Francisco, California in June 1945, replacing the failing League of Nations as an organization able to maintain international cooperation, peace, and security. However, regular disputes between its members with veto power such as the US and Russia, which have always been butting heads with one another, has led the UN to fail in solving most of the global conflicts, resulting in the deaths of millions of innocent people, including children worldwide.



The UN has failed in solving the Syrian conflict due to the regular confrontation between the US and Russia which defend different solutions for the Syrian war. According to the UN, the war has already caused more than 500.000 deaths and hundreds of thousands of casualties and refugees. Last year, more than 200 civil society organizations from around the world issued a statement demanding a real solution for the Syrian conflict from the UN. However, it has not formally responded yet. Sherine Tadros, Head of Amnesty International’s UN Office, said:

It is becoming clearer every day that the UN Security Council has failed the Syrian people. There have been almost half a million deaths, and each one is a stark rebuke of the Security Council, the supposed guardian of international peace and security, which has allowed a political deadlock to stand in the way of saving lives.”

This is why we, along with 224 civil society organizations, are urgently calling on UN member states to take action and request an Emergency Special Session of the UN General Assembly to demand an end to all unlawful attacks in Aleppo and elsewhere in Syria. They must call for immediate and unhindered humanitarian access so that life-saving aid can reach all those in need.”

UN member states can and should use all the diplomatic tools at their disposal to take action towards ending the atrocities in Syria – the inaction we have seen over the past five years is a shameful chapter in the history of the Security Council.”


The civil war in Yemen has already killed more than 12.000, mainly by the Saudi-led coalition, displacing millions and destroying most of the nation’s infrastructure. It has also left some 21 million people dependent on foreign aid to survive. Out of 27 million people in Yemen, 20 million are starving, including 400,000 children, and some 2.2 million are in need of urgent care.

The Saudi blockade of drinking water across the country has caused an outbreak of cholera that has already infected more than 300,000 Yemenis and killed 1,500 people, 55% of which were children. More than 600,000 people are expected to contract the disease before the end of the year. 

The UN is led by the US, which is a fierce ally of Saudi Arabia. This has blocked any agreement on solving the Yemeni conflict, stopping Saudi Arabia’s war crimes across the country and solving the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.


UN Peacekeepers were accused of raping and paying young girls for sex in Cambodia in 2005, Since then similar cases have also been found in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and other places. The UN has yet to condemn these criminal acts in order to preserves its “high reputation” worldwide.


The war in Bosnia began in 1992 in an effort to separate Serbs from other ethnicities. In 1993, the UN named Srebrenica a safe zone and sent 400 soldiers from the Dutch United Nations Protect Force in order to protect civilians and refugees living in the city. In 1995, however, some 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men were slaughtered by Serb forces. The UN Dutch commander did not order his troops to defend the innocent people against the Serbs. Instead, he was later pictured with the leader of the massacre, the Serb commander, Ratio Mladic in a celebration.


In 1994, the UN which was on a mission in Rwanda failed to prevent the Hutus from killing almost a million people of the Tutsi minority. The conflict began in the capital Kigali when the Hutu power government and officials incited civilians to take up arms against the Tutsis. The conflict rapidly spread throughout the country and resulted in the slaughter of a million and caused more than 2 million refugees.


The UN began the Oil-for-Food program in 1996 to allow Iraq to sell oil to pay for food and other necessities for its population. However, numerous corrupt UN employees mismanaged the program for their own benefit. Saddam Hussein also earned some $1.7 billion through kickbacks and surcharges.

There is no doubt that the UN has sometimes succeeded, but it has always been useless as a peace-keeper due to the diversity of positions between its members. The UN was founded to maintain international cooperation, peace, and security. However, it has become a slow, ineffective, and corrupt organization unable to bring peace, cooperation, and assist millions of people and refugees suffering from wars worldwide. The UN has failed as the old League of Nations did, so the questions now are: Should the UN be reformed to become an effective organization able to bring peace worldwide? or should the UN disappear instead?









12 thoughts on “Is the UN a Useless Organization?

  1. The UN as an organisation have not failed. The nation states which forms its membership have failed. If you hire a dance hall and have a lousy party, its possible the hall is not your problem. The UN is a forum for states to meet and craft out solutions under the rules of the UN as agreed by its member states. To blame the tool is a mistake. The UN has no standing army of its own. The UN peace force is a collection of member states contributing their soliders and expect other members to respect their mandate. Isreal for example has no time the UN force seperating it from Syria. The UK and US went againts UN rules and attacked Iraq, NATO states ignored the UN and went into Libya.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. The UN is much worse than useless, the concept of the Security Council is anti-democratic, creating an oligarchy of five with the General Assembly even less powerful than the common man or woman, it can investigate, advise, suggest and participate in voting provided its decisions agree with those of all five members of the Security Council. Security Council decisions are wholly political, even where it acts as the enforcement organism for the International Court of Justice. Consequently, it is the single greatest impediment to the attainment of equity, equality and justice in the world.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. I agree. The UN is only as strong as the countries that make it up. Without any forum for considering the problems of the world, there is no place for nations to discuss issues. Reform it.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The UN has not failed. It has prevented a third world war and many more conflicts. The UN was formed for just that purpose. It is a place where hostile nations can threaten, debate, argue , etc. rather than going to war.
    It has not prevented all wars. And sometimes it is ignored by the major powers. Like when the US invaded Iraq or Russia invaded the Ukraine. But , on the whole it has done much more good that would have been done with no international organization as a focal point for foreign affairs.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. The UN is a good idea, but I also wonder if it has outlived its purpose. Or maybe it’s just been corrupted by its members. No one respects it, I suspect. If the US and other large members continue to only abide the rules when it suits them, how can we expect the smaller countries to act differently?


  6. 1) They should have stuck with League of Nations. ‘League’ sounds more grandiose.

    2) A part of me believes in the UN. The idea of total world peace appeals to me because I like to be a naïve optimist sometimes.

    3) I don’t believe the resolutions that come out of that Security Council are always implemented all the way down to the targeted beneficiaries. Despite the concerted effort to alleviate human suffering, people are still living in great misery all over the world.

    4) What’s the point of being a member of the UN if a group of 5 nations ultimately decide what goes and what doesn’t? I second


  7. 1) They should have stuck with the League of nations. ‘League’ sounds more grandiose.

    2) A part of me believes in the UN. The idea of total world peace appeals to me because I like to be a naive optimist sometimes. For anyone who is doubting the UN, just consider our past. Consider what the world was like before it’s existence.

    3) I don’t believe that the resolutions that come out of those Security Council assemblies are as impactful as they make them out to be. They’re not always implemented all the way to the ground where the target beneficiary is. Despite the decorate reports and concerted efforts to alleviate human suffering, many people in the world are still living in great misery.

    4) VETO powers? What’s the point of being a member state if the shots will ultimately be called by 5 bosses. I personally don’t believe in such large and complex multilateral organizations as I’m an anarchist but it’s way too conceited and quite frankly, scary, to rest the fate of the world in the hands of these corporate, western-business-suit-wearing, jet-setting, diplomatic untouchables.(that’s the image they’ve allowed people to have of them)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s