Who chose that name, United Nations? There was a time when what existed was the Society of Nations, another name that implies unity, but in actual fact neither name essentially reflects the actual situation in the international organism.

Apart from having been so far an instrument at the complete disposal of just 5 countries : veto-holding China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States; it has also been all the time a nest of conspiracies, a waste of money and a useless tool for all those countries with no right to veto.

Should the United Nations be the international forum where all nations have the chance of exposing their divergences, their quarrels, their predicaments, with no other option than awaiting in fundamental cases for the unison agreement in the Security Council whose power is really in the hands of those five countries I mention above?.

Or rather should the U.N. be the mother organisation where all elements concerning world peace, development, poverty, education, health, etc would be housed?

Peace is the most fundamental of all reasons for the U.N. to be, but this peace should be controlled in the proper way, not as it is now in cases of resolutions which have to be sifted in the S.C. (Security Council) with real chances of being vetoed as has happened on multiple occasions as in the case of Israel, or in the cases of Serbia, or Iran, or Iraq, where no real unanimity was achieved to solve the problems once and for ever?

Development is also a fundamental part of the mission the U.N. should have, development and eradication of poverty should be a continuous target and the implementation of this development supported by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which would also be inside the organisation with full responsibility for the Secretary General as Head of the Organisation. Today we all know how these organisations work and at the call and beck of whom they work.

The right to veto is one of the most flagrant violations of the democratic principles, principles which are so much boasted by countries that do not respect them.

Education. Why the world cannot have a unitary education with the same subjects for everybody, an education that encompasses all aspects of our lives and teaches each and every one of us how to consider the world, democracy, corruption, etc in its proper terms, is something that has never been explained and something that should be addressed with a maximum priority.

Health. The enormous profits that Pharmaceuticals return to the big corporations of that sector are the consequence of exploitation of our health by them. Prices of the medicines are, as everybody knows, extremely costly to the Health Services of all countries let alone the pockets of citizens who have not been covered by the benefits of sanitary services. The excellent services provided by the professionals of Medicine are nothing if those medicines they prescribe are too dear and if the said corporations are not duly controlled and their profits duly dealt with by the Fisc. I wonder whether taxes on those profits could help some countries give sanitary coverage to their citizens.

Against my will this post has become too lengthy and I am not for long posts when readers’ time is one of the most important factors to be taken into account nowadays.

There is much more that can be said about the U.N. but my last commentary in this post is just to sum it all up in few words: It is a completely ineffective organisation whose running costs us - tax payers - so much that the money employed in it could serve to give remedy to many ills that are overwhelming the world.

Sheer shame!

Your response: