If the UN wants reinvent itself successfully, the first thing it needs to do is ensure the big people at the top listen to the little people on the ground. UN staff, soldiers and civilians alike, work with their hands tied by excessive bureaucracy, unrealistic mandates, and rank ignorance on the part of decision-makers. Soldiers are sent to do the work of civilians and vice versa. The UN needs to match its personnel to the tasks at hand. When peace can only be achieved by the threat and/or use of lethal force, military personnel need to be given the professional trust they deserve to deal with the situation effectively. Likewise, humanitarian aid workers must be equipped to save lives, not stand by helplessly or spend half their time worrying about their own safety. While the UN continues to treat warring parties with moral equivalence and negotiate with terrorists, while ignoring the expertise of its people on the ground, it risks an ignominious decline and eventual fall.

Graham Cooke, you say “The United Nations needs to be reformed”.

Have you forgotten that ‘The league of Nation’ took us to WW2?

Shouldn’t we wait for the end of the current WW3 before changing The United Nations to some other forum of politicians ready to take us to WW4

The UN is too interested in pseudo-issues like Climate Change and not interested enough in topics like the lack of basic service provision such as water and electricity to developing countries. Predictable catastrophes such as droughts in Africa seem to be dealt with poorly. Extensive TV advertising money spent on ads about saving orangutangs etc would surely be better spent direct aid programs. The UN appears to be unwilling to exert influence over the most corrupt regimes, while simultaneously being able to restrict the lifestyle and energy usage of the co-operative West through its associated UN Environmental agencies. At the same time the UN and its suborgnisations are possibly the greatest single users of carbon intensive air travel on the planet.

The power players in the UN are unelected and generally unknown to the population at large but are keen to and have major influence over our daily lives. Some of these people pursue increasing personal power and wealth through their UN links opening the way to the UN itself being exposed to corrupting influences.

The UN is in urgent need of reform as our daily lives are increasingly subject to restrictions dictated by unelected people some with dubious agendas. Meanwhile Kim Jong Il does what he wants, women in Saudi can't vote or drive cars and dictatorships are the norm in many African countries.

The US Federal Reserve a private group of banks supplies all the money to the US Govt hence it has all the power.The UN is funded and controlled by the USA.So private group of powerful individuals controls the UN.How is this good for world peace or the democratic process?

The UN is mostly OK. What's poisoning it is the power of veto privilege of its permanent members - which effectively gives these 5 countries totalitarian power over the rest of the world.

The only way for this to change is for ALL FIVE Security Council members to agree to forfeit their power of veto. This will never happen. So we are stuck with them, and they are stuck with each other.

As with any bureaucracy, the UN has become a caricature of itself. As Atman points out, they spend far too much time on trivia, and far too little on important stuff.

Mind you, the very existence of the UN provides a place where major issues are exposed to international scrutiny. And things do change...

>>Meanwhile Kim Jong Il does what he wants, women in Saudi can't vote or drive cars and dictatorships are the norm in many African countries<<

http://www.theage.com.au/world/saudi-king-gives-women-right-to-vote-20110925-1krzf.html

"Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has announced he is giving women the right to vote and run in municipal elections, the only public polls in the ultra-conservative Gulf kingdom"

The concept of any level of "reform" is of course totally alien to any established bureaucracy. Once entrenched, the only people who are able to make changes will, by definition, be disadvantaged by those changes. And it is one of the safest bets ever, that you won't find an altruistic bone in any publicly-funded body. Ever.

So it is probably best to hold ones nose against the stench of corruption, shrug ones shoulders at the sight of the row upon row of pigs with their snouts in the trough, and be thankful that occasionally, something comes of it all.

Because on balance it is better to have the UN, than not. Ban Ki-Moon probably understand this better than most, hence his approach of "let's do what we can". Unexciting, and of course sub-optimal. But probably the best that can be achieved under the circumstances.

"The United States had emerged as a Great Power without whom anything could be achieved."

How does the United States inhibit achieving "anything"? What is the "anything" that could be achieved without the US but could not be achieved with the US?

In the Cold War, when the Soviet Block (Russia and its allies) was in constant competition with the NATO Block (US/UK and their allies), the UN proved an excellent circuit breaker. Conflicts which threatened to escalate out of control could be tossed to the UN where either side could back down or compromise, ostensibly at the behest of an imaginary ‘World Community’. Never underestimate the value of saving face. The UN may have delivered us from WWIII.

That’s worth the purchase price of the UN, obviously ... and it ain’t cheap. What do we get for our money and commitment THESE days, though? Think hard, now. There’s the World Health Organisation (WHO?). Granted, they’re a great boon to Mercedes Benz -- an astonishing percentage of their budget is spent on flash cars for WHO officials -- but they don’t do house calls; if you need a doctor, call Medecins sans Frontiers. They run the International Court of Justice, which is nice ... they’re just now looking into the Khmer Rouge massacres of 1975-79, so we can probably expect posthumous prosecution of Kim Jong Il, Mugabe, Assad, and al-Zawahiri sometime before .. 2080? There’s the World Food Program, but they basically collect donations after the situation has become desperate; improving Third World agriculture is for smaller, nimbler NGOs. UNICEF collects donations too, but what they do with the money is a mystery. Most of it probably goes to salaries: the pay for UN office workers is apparently pegged to some multiple of what experienced riggers make for fly-in-fly-out work on Indian Ocean oil platforms. Oh, and they do peacekeeping. They’ll even send in troops, though they aren’t allowed use weapons, and they’re obliged to leave well before any shooting starts.

For a while, the opinions of U Thant or Dag Hammarskjold mattered. These days, when poor ineffectual Ban Ki Moon declares ‘This is not acceptable!’, that pretty clearly translates as ‘It’s too late to lift a finger, so why try?’ I doubt the UN can be reformed. Maybe it can be replaced. Worth a try.

When the Charter of the UN was implemented, it was the island of Taiwan (Formosa) which was representing China as one of the Permanent Members of the Security Council.

It was at the insistance of Stalin's Russia that we have the Veto when the Security Council votes (or even allowed a debate an issue).

All the General Secretaries of the UN are professional diplomats. With the exception of Dag Hammarskjold, all of them have been chosen or agreed by the Permanent Members.

Until the rest of the world community realise that they are more important together than all the Permanent Members put together, there is going to be no reform.

Incidentally, it is in the interest of China to let the other Permanent Members experience difficulties.. It is the interest of the USA to let the other Permanent Members experience problems. All the Permanent Members are essentially persuing their own agenda, often at the expense of the rest of the world community.