Most international organizations are all bark and no bite
International organizations are ultimately useless in solving the world’s problems. Discuss.
Following the Second World War which saw death and destruction in an unprecedented scale, world leaders, determined not to let such horrors repeat, convened to establish international organizations in hopes of achieving a more peaceful, secure and prosperous world for all.
50 years onwards, we witness their dreams and ideals embodied in international organizations like the United Nations, the World Health Organization and World Trade Organization. Although these international bodies are undoubtedly far from perfect, it would be unfair to claim that they are ultimately useless in view of their significant contributions to the goal of a better, more prosperous world.
It is understandable why some would claim that most international organizations are failures. Very often, such organizations, despite their public advocation, fail to achieve any actual impact. An often-criticized organization is the United Nations (UN), which was established to achieve global peace, security and cooperation. But despite boasting an extensive membership of more than 300 member nations, the UN has often found it hard both in terms of making significant decisions and enforcing them.
For instance, despite having UN peacekeepers in the country, the UN was unable to stop the Rwanda genocide in 1994 that resulted in the death of tens of thousands. More recently, the UN’s inaction towards the massacre of civilians by the Syrian government, the indiscriminate bombing of Palestine by Israel as well as the Russian Federation’s repeated incursions and provocations toward Ukraine drew much criticism from the global community.
But to claim that such failures are solely due to the failures of the UN and other international bodies over-simplifies the situation. Often, the reason why such international organizations fail to achieve significant results is due to the fact that states are primarily
Following the Second World War which saw death and destruction in an unprecedented scale, world leaders, determined not to let such horrors repeat, convened to establish international organizations in hopes of achieving a more peaceful, secure and prosperous world for all.
50 years onwards, we witness their dreams and ideals embodied in international organizations like the United Nations, the World Health Organization and World Trade Organization. Although these international bodies are undoubtedly far from perfect, it would be unfair to claim that they are ultimately useless in view of their significant contributions to the goal of a better, more prosperous world.
It is understandable why some would claim that most international organizations are failures. Very often, such organizations, despite their public advocation, fail to achieve any actual impact. An often-criticized organization is the United Nations (UN), which was established to achieve global peace, security and cooperation. But despite boasting an extensive membership of more than 300 member nations, the UN has often found it hard both in terms of making significant decisions and enforcing them.
For instance, despite having UN peacekeepers in the country, the UN was unable to stop the Rwanda genocide in 1994 that resulted in the death of tens of thousands. More recently, the UN’s inaction towards the massacre of civilians by the Syrian government, the indiscriminate bombing of Palestine by Israel as well as the Russian Federation’s repeated incursions and provocations toward Ukraine drew much criticism from the global community.
But to claim that such failures are solely due to the failures of the UN and other international bodies over-simplifies the situation. Often, the reason why such international organizations fail to achieve significant results is due to the fact that states are primarily