WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE UNITED NATIONS AND WHY IT NEEDS TO BE REFORMED

side note: i'm making this thread with the information i was taught in school (i'm canadian) and with sources from the internet. also, english isn't my first language so i'm sorry for any grammatical mistakes.

according to Wikipedia, "the United Nations is an intergovernmental organization that aims to maintain international peace and security, [...] and be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations."

yes that's what it was founded for but history showed us that it fails to do so

the UN was created after WW2. basically, it's a better version of the League of Nations that was created after WW1 to maintain peace (which didn't work). in my opinion, the UN isn't working either, or at least not as much as it should.

the UN is based of 5 principle organs: the General Assembly where all the countries member of the UN are seated, the UN Secretariat, the International Court of Justice, the Economic & Social Council and the Security Council. the latter is why i strongly believe we need to reform.

the Security Council's job is to ensure international peace and security. it is made of 15 countries, 10 non-permanent members and 5 permanent members, the winning countries of WW2 (China, Russia, USA, France, UK). these 5 countries can veto ANY resolution made by the UN.

if you ask yourself why the UN isn't doing anything about the Ughiurs Muslims being sent in camps in China, that's exactly why. not because China is too powerful, because it will veto any resolution made by the General Assembly to send UN peacekeepers in China.

wonder why the UN didn't intervene during the Cold War, the Cuban missile crisis and the Vietnam War? because the US and Russia (USSR back then) would veto any decision that wasn't in their favour.

the Rwandan genocide is proof of what's wrong with the UN. in just 100 days in 1994, 800,000 Tutsis were slaughtered in Rwanda by Hutu extremists. the UN sent peacekeepers at the beginning of the genocide but the Security Council voted to withdraw them as they were insufficient.

the Security Council didn't believe the genocide was as bad and didn't do much about it since the news weren't really talking about it. but in mid-May 1994, reports of the genocide spread and the Security Council voted to send more troops, only for them to arrive when the +

genocide was over. the UN and the international community failed Rwanda. former Swedish prime minister Ingvar Carlsson, who lead the investigation into understanding the UN's failure, said "Our conclusion is that there is one overriding failure which explains why the UN could +

not stop or prevent the genocide, and that is a lack of resources and a lack of will - a lack of will to take on the commitment necessary to prevent the genocide." (if i could highlight this i would).

did the UN learn from the Rwandan genocide. i'd like to think yes but the Security Council is corrupt and has too much power over the organization, so no.

as long as China, Russia, France, the USA and the UK have power over the UN, the organization won't be able to fully respect its aims. that's why the United Nations need to be reformed.

i'm done for now with this thread, if you have anything you want to add feel free to do so. i hope this enlightened you on why the UN fails to intervene in some conflicts and on what needs to be changed.

since we all know the UN won't intervene in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, here's how you can help: https://twitter.com/tbsfireproof/status/1277642916379459584