I used to think the U.N., both in principle and in practice, was the closest thing we’d have to a world government, coming together to tackle the challenges faced by all humanity. Now I feel that the U.N. is an utterly useless organization when it comes to protecting human rights and enforcing security.

U.S. President Barack Obama (R) meets with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, March 10, 2009. REUTERS/Jason Reed

As we speak thousands are murdered in the Darfur region of the Sudan, and what does the U.N. do? They send troops to a different part of the country. Clearly, they are more concerned about being seen to be doing something, than actually doing it. And as the bureaucrats shuffle their papers in New York, and peacekeepers patrol the peaceful areas, more people are dying horrifying deaths a few miles away.
The U.N. has done more outrageous things in the past, as when it herded Muslim men into Sarajevo, methodically disarmed them and then handed them over to Serb militiamen to be shot, or when it ordered its commanding officer in Rwanda not to seize the arms caches that were about to be used for the genocide, which saw more than a million Tutsis dead and many more disabled or displaced.

The U.N. failed to stop the illegal invasion of Iraq which has resulted in the death of thousands of civilians, and made Iraq worse than what it was under Saddam Hussein. It has not taken any action against Israel’s failure to adhere to the U.N. resolutions dating years back or its disproportionate use of force against the Palestinians and Lebanese in the name of “self defense,” which is a crime under international law.

The U.N. charges people like Charles Taylor of Liberia, Radovan Karadzic of Bosnia and others, but fails to charge people like George W. Bush and all Israeli prime ministers who have committed war crimes against humanity.

Further, the U.N. has strenuously denied covering up an investigation into the sale of illicit arms by its officials to Congolese rebels. I mean it’s one thing to be called useless: sitting around in the aftermath of the Asian tsunami holding press conferences while the Australian and U.S. navies were on site distributing aid; it’s another thing to be selling weapons to murderous militiamen: that’s in the worse than useless category.

Seeing its pathetic demise is even more sickening considering the number of people who still defend it as the holy grail of morality and international law. And for those who support it, what has the U.N. exactly achieved in the last sixty years? Achieved peace in Europe? Ask the people in Bosnia. Settled the problem in the Middle East? Ask the people in Gaza. Improved life for Africans? Ask the people in Darfur, or Rwanda, or anybody for that matter.

Not only does it slow down the process of passing resolutions and making decisions, but it is often used for reasons personal to the country rather than legitimate reasons. Moreover, it is highly unfair that only five countries hold the veto power. Originally, they were given the power as “winners” of WWII and as the most powerful countries that existed when the U.N. was created, but this has long since changed. In the past 50 years, many countries have climbed to the top of the world podium as economically or politically more influential, and if veto power is allowed, they should be considered for it as well.

Lastly, veto power gives even more power to the already powerful. Why do the most influential countries in the world already need more power? The U.N. is supposed to be a democratic and diplomatic organization, but keeping veto power around hinders the fulfilment of this ideology as it diminishes the voices of smaller countries.

It’s good as an organization at drawing up idealistic conventions, but near-useless at getting them translated into political reality. This usually prompts one or another of two conclusions: first, that the U.N. is powerless, second that it is hypocritical — or worse, both. Welcome to the U.N.’s thousandth summit, scheduled to beat all previous records on admirable promises, declarations of noble ideals and evocations of a peaceful and just future for humanity. It has ballooned into an organization of members in such radically different stages of their development that the core values of the United Nations are imperiled.

The U.N., like the League of Nations before it, has shown the futility of trying to achieve a commonality of purpose among nations who do not share a common political philosophy or experience. The only purpose the U.N. serves is to provide a podium and an illusion of legitimacy for some of the vilest regimes on the planet.

It’s extraordinary how we keep ignoring the actual U.N. in favor of some theoretical one. Even though much of its bureaucrats engage in fraud, and are found running smuggling rackets or child prostitution rings, we still maintain that the U.N. embodies a lofty ideal. And that, of course, is the problem. The automatic benefit of the doubt will, over time, destroy even the most robust institution.

The U.N. has proven itself a failure for its entire history and will continue to do so. It’s a diseased, toothless and impotent organization. Pretending anything different is nothing more than wishful thinking.

What is more disturbing is the unwillingness of many commentators to admit as much — because denial hinders any possibility of change. The U.N. requires a complete overhaul in order to salvage any useful function it could possibly serve — and even then it will still be a sclerotic, top-heavy, inefficient body.

The writer is professor of interdisciplinary studies at the University of Toledo in Ohio.