# data[].attributes.headline
UN security council is pointless as there is no proper representation

# data[].attributes.subject
UN security council is pointless as there is no proper representation

# data[].attributes.body
I think the UN is not effective as an actor in the international system because such as in the case of the security council, it lacks what many regard as an ideal representation of the world.

The 5 states that make up the security council: US, UK, Russia, China, and France, have more say in decisions concerning matters discussed in UN meetings than the rest of UN states. This means that even if most UN members agreed on a particular matter, it can be unanimously disregarded by Security Council members, which is biased.

There have been reforms proposed to change the way it works or add more members to it such as Japan, India, Brazil, and South Africa, but 'None of the proposals has the unanimous support of the permanent members and would not be able to garner the support of two-thirds of member states'.
-Sultan

# data[].attributes.body
The UN as a peace keeping force is about as effective as introducing any parry military force into any foreign nation, to its not very effective at its name sake peace keeping.  "...there had been the debacle in Somalia where a US-led UN humanitarian operation turned into a bloody conflict against a powerful warlord. By then Angola was already back at war after its UN peacekeeping mission collapsed amid accusations it contributed to the breakdown of peace." despite its name the peace keeping force is still consists of armed forces being moved into destabilized areas, where conflict is likely.

# data[].attributes.body
UN peacekeeping operations aim at initiating stability and security in places with armed conflicts. A few times the UN peacekeeping operations have been successful like in El Salvador and Cambodia. However, on many other occasions, the UN peacekeeping operations have failed miserably like in Yugoslavia and in Rwanda. Or even worse when the UN peacekeeping operations were accused of being the reason for the unrest in Angola.

# data[].attributes.headline
UN security council, infinite red tape                              Osman Ukil

# data[].attributes.subject
UN security council, infinite red tape                              Osman Ukil

# data[].attributes.body
The UN security council is comprised up the five current great powers, USA, UK, PRC, Russia and France. These five states are the ones that hold the most power in the UN their interests surpass the lesser members. However there is considerable infighting within the council as the interests of these states constantly conflict with each other, even the nations that operate and share  democratic ideals.

The obvious example of that is the 1950s Suez crisis as Egypt attempted to nationalize the British and French owned Suez canal. These two powers joined to impose their power on Egypt. However the Soviet Union AND the United States opposed them, threatening sanctions against Britain and France. They subsequently let Egypt seize the canal.

Of course there is the usual ideological reasons these states would disagree with each other. Communist China and the USSR would usually team up to challenge whatever decision the liberal nations would try to enact. This at times would manifest in acts that seem to be out of spite.

# data[].attributes.body
The Un security
The politics of the UN security council continues to hamstring action over some conflicts, such as Syria and Darfur. Other missions drag on indefinitely, such as in the DRC and Haiti. There is friction between the UN and some governments over who has ultimate command over peacekeeping troops, which has resulted in conflicting orders with disastrous consequences. Then there are spreading conflicts against armed Islamist groups in central and west Africa.

# data[].attributes.body
While the UN might have its benefits in other aspects, one aspect it does not benefit the world in is peacekeeping, and we see this throughout the history of the world itself. Examples:The deaths of 2000 Tutsis people at the school, the killing of 8000 muslim men in Srebrenica, which was deemed to be a UN "safe area". So basically, the United States of America is the root of all evil. - Mo

# data[].attributes.body
India strongly opposes a move towards more forceful peacekeeping. “When it has been used as a tool to ensure that a peace agreement is observed so that peace building can take place, or as a tool to facilitate a political resolution, it works,” said Mukerji, the Indian ambassador to the UN.

“But if peacekeeping is to be seen as peace enforcement, then unfortunately we can’t see the UN charter allowing such a radical departure of the use of peacekeeping.

“Peacekeeping is not an end in itself. The end is political stability and peacekeeping is just a tool to bring about political stability. What’s happening now is the cart is being put before the horse. I think that’s a very unfortunate development.”

From the article :

What's the point of peacekeepers when they don't keep the peace?

What's the point of peacekeepers when they don't keep the peace?

# data[].attributes.body
ok lmao
said Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general. “In addition to using military and police forces, we have been deploying a lot of special political missions. This is preventative diplomacy. If we can prevent at the time of symptoms of a crisis, we can save a lot of human lives and human resources.”
LOLOLOL

As the scale of peacekeeping has grown so have the questions about its role. Most particularly, are peacekeepers there to monitor peace or to enforce it? It’s a source of increasing friction between the major powers on the security council that approve UN intervention and some of the countries which provide the troops.

UN IS NOT EFFECTIVE IN PEACE, lmao have you met yugos? they a little crazy even now

# data[].attributes.body
Although the UN serves as an effective neutral ground for various nations to meet and discuss international affairs, it's capacity to actually enact any large-scale or effective change on agreed upon matters is severely hindered by the role of the security council. The ability for its established members to hold such a large sway in matters of international conflict has proved, by extension, to neuter the effectiveness of many of the UN's attempted peacekeeping missions - two of the primary examples being their presence (or lack of) in the Balkan Wars and inability to de-escalate tensions between North and South Sudan.

~Sam B

# data[].attributes.body
Many times in the history of the UN were they have failed in their mission in enforcing their "peacekeeping".  The most infamous example is that of the Rwandan genocide Thousands of Tutsis sought the protection of UN peacekeepers. However the vastly undermanned UN forces refused to help and let the radical militants to literally butcher thousands of Tutsis with machetes.

Another infamous act of UN inaction was the Srebrenica massacre. Thousands of civilians were killed by Serbian ultranationalists in what was meant to be an town designated by the UN as a "safe area".