The Iraq war wounded the UN, but it won't be fatal

Isn’t it strange how america dismissed the UN, when going to war with Iraq, but as soon as they see trouble, the very first org. they turn to is the the UN?

The Iraq war wounded the UN, but it won’t be fatal

The UN and the security council can survive the US campaign of vilification

Hans Blix
Monday November 29, 2004
The Guardian

The results of a review of the functioning of the UN, conducted by a panel appointed by the secretary general Kofi Annan, will soon be on the table. That there is a need to discuss an array of questions is not in doubt - but the fact that the most powerful member of the organisation shows disdain for it is not exactly conducive to a positive intergovernmental debate.

We learned before the invasion of Iraq that in the view of the US administration, the security council had the choice of voting with the US for armed action - or being irrelevant. A majority on the council did not allow itself to be pushed into supporting the action, and the invasion took place. Many saw this as a loss of prestige for the council and as a crisis for the UN. In one way it was, and is. Institutions such as the security council are like instruments to be played. If members choose not to play or are completely out of tune, no marching music results. It is only when the construction of the instruments is found deficient or outmoded that repair is meaningful.

Re: The Iraq war wounded the UN, but it won't be fatal

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ma Mooli: *
....The Iraq war wounded the UN, but it won't be fatal .....
[/QUOTE]

The UN is good in certain aspects only. Even French don't give it a hoot where things need to be "done" as in Siera leon.

What i dont understand is why they have a veto system, i mean thats not very democratic is it?