The future of the United Nations has come under renewed scrutiny, with correspondents arguing that the organisation’s peacekeeping role has been undermined by its structure and by the conduct of powerful member states.
The letters followed Nicholas Kristof’s defence of the UN’s humanitarian work, which one writer said recognised the organisation’s continuing importance but overlooked what he described as its ultimate failure.
Chris Rivers, of Port Macquarie, argued that the UN had been weakened from its creation by granting veto powers to five nations. He said the organisation had become ineffective against modern warfare, while unified humanitarian systems were still essential.
Mr Rivers pointed to Donald Trump’s use of the UN forum to make what he characterised as an effective declaration of war on Iran. He called for a global rethink of how wars are prevented, shaped by humanity rather than politicians.
Ian Adair, of Hunters Hill, said the leaders of the United States and Israel had used speeches at the UN to glorify the destruction of their enemies and threaten further action if their demands were not met.
He also criticised Mr Trump’s attitude towards the organisation, claiming that the US President refused to pay its dues and planned to replace the UN with his own “Peace Board”. Mr Adair questioned whether US foreign policy would change after Mr Trump’s presidency or whether he would be succeeded by a like-minded figure.
Other correspondents argued that the organisation remained indispensable despite its shortcomings. Rev Vincent Zankin, of Rivett in the ACT, recalled that the UN’s first General Assembly resolution, adopted on January 24 1946, addressed the peaceful use of atomic energy and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.
He said the continuing nuclear arms race between the US, China and Russia demonstrated the need for the UN to reaffirm the importance of human dignity and the dangers posed by atomic weapons.
The responses present a divided view of the United Nations: an institution regarded by some as an outdated and powerless part of the post-war order, but by others as a necessary framework for humanitarian action and international efforts to prevent catastrophe.
