The UN is a diplomatic structure that exists to give state’s representatives a place to gather and talk. It’s not a world government. If it had been created with the intention of being one, no one would have signed on.

Trump’s “Board of Peace” is intended as basically official world police and several countries have signed up for it because they want to actively enforce “peace” towards anyone they disagree with.

The UN will never succeed in anything useful unless their resolutions carry economic or military weight.

For a “place to gather and talk” they sure do use a lot of money and resources. Maybe they should switch to remote work lol

The UN budget for 2025 was $3.7 billion.

ungeneva.org/…/general-assembly-approves-372-bill…

For comparison, global chewing gum sales in 2025 were $48.68 billion

www.statista.com/topics/1841/chewing-gum/

General Assembly approves $3.72 billion UN budget for 2025 | The United Nations Office at Geneva

The United Nations Office at Geneva

10 million per day still seems like a lot, though we don’t know how much the sitting around and talking part actually uses since the article mentions this:

The regular budget funds UN programmes across key areas, including political affairs, international justice and law, regional cooperation for development, human rights and humanitarian affairs, and public information.

seems like

You clearly know what you’re talking about, Professor.

reddit ass comment
That explains why the UN doesn’t kick ass.

It’s not a world government.

Exactly. The UN is NOT a world government and we need to stop expecting it to act as one. That was never the intention of the UN.

That being said, a lot of people talk about the necessity for the “rule of law,” but there cannot be the rule of law without some kind of government with the authority to enact and ENFORCE laws. If nations are not willing to sign on to something like that, we cannot have the rule of law. Instead we will have the rule of whichever country has the largest, most powerful military and/or economic influence. I know a lot of Americans are fine with that arrangement because that position is currently occupied by the US, and has been for more than half a century, but the US might not always occupy that role. How would you feel about this arrangement if China, for instance, were the world’s hegemon instead of the US?

Its got to start somewhere, we have to agree on something, or its going to get a lot hotter in a lot of horrific ways. I hate the hair splitting, the “yes, but what abouts”- things are getting bad out there and it has to stop. There are 190 other countries that are putting up with this, isn’t that enough to enforce something??
To justify and “legalize” imperialism and the capitalist world system more like.
? The soviet Union was a veto member no?