The United Nations was born out of the ashes of World War Two, the war after World War One that was supposed to be "the war to end all wars." The purpose of the UN was supposed to be to prevent another world war. However, some 70 years after its birth — while fortunately there has not been another global war (yet) — there have been so many wars all over the globe.

The UN's precursor was the League of Nations. While the United States was one of the staunchest advocates for the latter's formation, ironically, when the League was formed, it did not become a member thereof. It was the consensus among international law experts that such refusal greatly impeded the League's effectiveness. And then — in a move that further weakened it — the League expelled another powerful state, Russia, in a manner seen by many to be procedurally irregular.

This was why, when the League was dissolved, another multi-state organization was contemplated to prevent what the League failed to prevent. This time, in order to entice the hesitant Americans and the wary (read: Once burned) Russians into another international organization, they sweetened the pot, so to speak, by introducing the concept of  "veto power" in a "security council" composed of five permanent members all endowed with such a prerogative. Of course, as we now know, this time the United States joined, and Russia went back in.

But — alack and alas! — the setup proved problematic from the start. With contending geopolitical interests emerging between and among the five permanent members (US, USSR, United Kingdom, China and France), which was accentuated by the Cold War when the world became sharply divided between the "Free World" and the "Iron Curtain," the Security Council was unable to take a position on important matters. 

Any resolution that tended to even marginally favor one side over another was immediately vetoed by one or more permanent members. Without the affirmative vote of all permanent members, a resolution was doomed. It was like a court case in which the validity of a decision depended on all sides agreeing to all its provisions, and which could be nullified by just one party. In such a scenario, the 10 non-permanent members, which changed every few years, hardly counted at all (pun intended).

The General Assembly was more proactive in dealing with pressing issues. But it is hobbled by the fact that its resolutions are "non-binding," meaning to say that if the subject of the resolution does not want to follow it, then the 192 other members can rant and rave all they want, but it isn't going to happen. In a word: useless.

This uselessness of the UN is once again becoming evident in the ongoing international political tug of war over the conflict in the Middle East which arose from Hamas' terror attack on Israel. As the war escalates and the casualties — both soldiers and civilians — continue to mount, the UN is in a flurry trying to end the fighting, lest it spread to the entire region and more people are killed.

But the mechanisms in place are hardly adequate. The General Assembly has passed a resolution calling for a "humanitarian truce" to allow aid to be delivered to non-combatants. Israel has rejected this and says that not only does the resolution not condemn Hamas, but any lull in combat operations would allow it to regroup.

The Security Council tried to pass two resolutions: One (authored by the US) that recognizes Israel's "right to self-defense that was promptly vetoed by Russia and China; and another, on Russia's initiative, condemning Hamas but calling for a ceasefire, which this time was vetoed by the US.

Sigh…

It is thus clear that, far from being united, the members of the UN are, on the contrary, untied. I just hope and pray that this does not result in another world war that will render our planet uninhabitable.