Is the United Nations Worth It?

Recently a caller from Delta made the point on my radio program that given that there are so many other groups of nations, the United Nations was of no use to anyone. It is a fair question.

First, let's remember that a number of UN agencies have done great work; both the World Health Organization and UNICEF come quickly to mind.

Then there is the International Labour Organization, a UN specialized agency which was founded in 1919 and is the only surviving major creation of the League of Nations. In 1946, it became the first specialized agency of the UN.

Many relief efforts have been failures but whose failures must be measured against its successes which are many.

The Security Council has been a huge disappointment in many ways but again, as retired General Lewis Mackenzie said last week, its purpose in 1945 was to prevent another world war and whether by luck or design it has done that -- so far.

Rah, rah for 'jaw-jaw'

I think there are two ways to approaching this. If both the Security Council and, to a greater extent the General Assembly, are nothing more than "talk shops" is that all so bad? Winston Churchill wisely said "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war".

This may seem like thin gruel but I rate quite high the proposition that bringing countries together under one roof, if only to meet and talk to one another, is a worthwhile thing in itself.

It's so difficult, of course, to prove a negative. How much tension would there have been between nations if there had been no General Assembly? The question applies with even greater force to the Security Council. If there had been no Security Council could, would the United States and the Soviet Union have avoided war just through an exchange of ambassadors? I very much doubt it.

There are, of course, other very important groupings of nations providing limited "talk shops" but they often, like NATO and the EU, exclude the nations most likely to cause trouble.

World opinion matters

I think the answer to my caller is this: If you compare the UN to the ideal so bruited about in 1945 when the organization came into being, it's a failure. No question about that. But if you compare it to the League of Nations, which failed abysmally to stop Japan and Italy from taking other peoples' land away, it is moderately successful. Let's remember that world opinion is important so that despite the fact that the United States, Britain and Israel notably have ignored Security Council orders, the very fact that's happened operates so as to become part of the judgment World Opinion makes.

I would argue then, that despite its failings and failures we'd be much worse off without the United Nations than we are with it. It should stay, and, as best as possible, be improved.

Rafe Mair's column for The Tyee runs every Monday and he can be heard every weekday morning from 8:30-10:30 on 600AM. His website is www.rafeonline.com.