United Nations. The organization that was created on the ruins of the colonial rule with promises of a peaceful future. But how successful was it in tackling war, poverty, disease and abuse ? Find out in our special series United Nations: ambitions and failures of a new world.
In 70 years since its inception, the United Nations has grown, has changed, has achieved much.
For those who have never encountered it, war is something abstract. A piece of statistics. Personnel lost, civilians killed, buildings destroyed, financial damage done. Even mass killings and genocides are perceived as atrocities by mostly the brain, without the emotional aspect.
Peacekeeping may be important. Curbing military violence with threat of more violence is effective at preventing all-out wars, yes. However, it doesn’t fix underlying issues that led to conflict – poverty, lack of basic resources such as food, water, shelter.
Some global issues cannot be solved by sending aid or peacekeepers. For example, if a country has something of value but does not behave the way the global community wants it to behave, it’s not really in everyone’s best interests to ostracize the country.
Wars and famine are not the only scourges of humanity the UN attempts to stop. World Health Organization, working under the auspices of the United Nations, aims to raise quality of life – and longevity – by combating various diseases, which an often run rampant in developing countries due to a multitude of factors.
Genocide is not a word thrown around easily, but when thousands of people are killed just for belonging to certain group, there’s no other way to put it. And, as terrible as it is, these atrocities have happened several times, and in recent history.
UNESCO, one of UN’s most known bodies, promotes collaboration through education, science, and culture – a noble cause, indeed.
One of the reasons United Nations was created – arguably, the primary reason – was to prevent future massive conflicts like World War II. However, a new threat was already apparent – nuclear weapons. In conventional warfare, it’s much easier to contain military menace in a given region.