Un tema muy interesante, cuál va a ser el rol futuro de las Naciones Unidas, si es que va a tener alguno. Este es el punto de vista de Victor Davis Hanson sobre el por qué del fracaso de este organismo:
Americans grew up with kind feelings toward the United Nations. Many remain nostalgic about their childhood UNESCO Halloween buckets and UNICEF Christmas cards. Such goodwill explains why we host the organization and cover a quarter of its operating budget.
The U.N. arose out of the ashes of World War II and was the dream of Western idealists who sought to enact liberal notions of human rights and jurisprudence on a global scale.
Only a humane transnational body, it was felt, could avoid a repeat of the 50 million lives lost in World War II. A Security Council of great powers was to add muscle to resolutions—avoiding the irrelevance of the defunct League of Nations, which had proved impotent in the face of fascist aggression. And this time, the world body would be located right smack in Manhattan, symbolizing the American commitment to world arbitration in lieu of our prior isolationism.
Well, here we are in 2005 with nearly 60 years of the U.N.—and more people have been lost in wars since 1945 than during World War II itself. Americans now distrust the U.N.'s record as much as they might applaud its idealism in theory. Why?