The United Nations, our first global peace organization, does not function.

In times of world crisis it is either absent, silent, irrelevant or insufficient in its reactions.

Where was a forceful intervention when war crimes and crimes against humanity were perpetrated during the Soviet aggression in Budapest in ‘56 and Prague in ‘68, or for that matter in response to US war crimes in Vietnam? What did the UN do to prevent the genocide in Rwanda, the brutal oppressions in Kongo, Uganda, Somalia, Zimbabwe and Burma, or the massive human rights violations that have taken place in China? What authority has the UN been able to exert in the Israel-Palestine conflict, where are the UN's solutions for this ongoing state of affairs? The UN's own report on Bosnia and Srebrenica is a clear condemnation of the organization's irresponsibility and lack of morale or determination to live up to its own charter, thus allowing disaster to happen. Russia has twice attacked the republic of Chechnya, a tiny corner of land that is territorially part of the Russian federation, killing two hundred thousand of its own citizens. The Security Council has remained shamefully silent.

The fact is that the UN has a disastrous track record in international crisis management.

The UN was chartered a few months after the end of World War Two with the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. In 1948 the UN adopted its Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in 2005 a summit meeting in the General Assembly also accepted another important document: The Responsibility to Protect. This resolution is significant because it defines the world's responsibility to intervene and protect individuals or groups of people harassed by forces within their own country. From this it should be clear that any majority population or government should not get away with genocide, war crimes or persecution against minorities or groups of people within their own national borders. According to The Responsibility to Protect, such perpetrations are no longer an "internal affair" - but rather a clear international matter, falling under UN jurisdiction.

So why does the UN fail to function? It is partly due to terrible leadership (and here the current Secretary General Ban Ki Moon scores badly); bad management in general; bureaucracy; inefficiency; corruption and waste of resources; and, I would add, a lack of morale amongst staff and lack of respect for the organization's ultimate objectives.

But most of all I think the UN's shortcomings boil down to one major point: the veto power given to the permanent members of the Security Council. This prevents the United Nations from emerging as a true supranational organization, with the power to intervene when necessary to uphold the Charter and Declarations signed by its members. When the UN was formed in 1945 the winners of World War Two, the USA, Great Britain, France, Russia and China, reserved permanent seats on the Security Council for themselves, each with the power of veto for any resolution. The result is that in most international, or indeed national, crises or war offences, one or more of these countries have a vested interest in blocking intervention. For the very same reason they also look for weak, insignificant personalities when appointing the organization's top man, the General Secretary.

In this way, the United Nations has become increasingly paralyzed and irrelevant. The management of the world is transferred to other forums where individual powers have more direct control, such as the G20, Nato or the EU - but they all lack the true legitimacy of a world order. Reform of the UN is urgently needed, if we are to have a supranational organization that is fit for purpose and can uphold international commitments to peace and human rights with determination, strength and legitimacy. Such reforms should define a Security Council with an equitable representation reflecting the world today - and with a binding qualified majority vote instead of the veto.

Ivar Amundsen
Director, Chechnya Peace Forum