The holy UN

UN says. UN says. UN rules. UN recommends. We follow the United Nations. The United Nations is for Norway to become the highest authority, that you must obey.

The two letters, the United Nations, is the ultimate argument. When it is performed, it is really nothing more to discuss. The United Nations is the only to bow to. But the UN is far from a clear authority. There is an old and tired truth that the UN is not something more or something other than what the members want the organization to be. It applies well in reality for all organizations, but additional lot for an organization that, in principle, to represent the world community as a whole and has 192, to some very different countries, as members. And where five of them have the right to stop any action they do not like.

There we saw more than during the Cold War. We saw also that the UN had a new kind of spring, when the Cold War ceased around 1990. The hope was that the UN would be something other than the members would that it should be. But then the world went on, although some thought to see the "end of history" at this time. The United Nations is, and remains, an organization with significant limitations.

Not powerless.

But that does not mean that the UN is completely powerless and without influence as an organization. Here we are at a core point, a very omdiskutert phenomenon in international politics and history: whether people's personality disorders and their significance for development. Some theoreticians speak any of the long lines and about general trends, others focus more on their impact. Regardless of theoretical basis, it can not be any doubt that people can have great significance, both because of what they do, and what they do not do.

And this is where criticism of the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hit so hard. The evaluation is rather tough. After mid-term as Secretary General, he has barely moved an inch forward the UN. He has simply not shown the leadership that is necessary. He does not have the personal qualities needed in such a position. He is konfliktsky, in the sense that he does not do anything that may cause criticism. But as any manager knows, there will always be criticism if he / she does something. But as everyone also knows, there will be criticism if she / he do nothing.

Action Lamb.

Ban has chosen to do as little as possible. He has not shown the necessary leadership. He also has a personality that has not inspired, neither the employee or member. Ban may be standing as an impotent NOK General, and with it have forspilt a number of opportunities for the UN to be leading, not least in a period where the U.S. is far more friendly mind-set toward the world organization than during the eight years of President George W. Bush .

We here in Norway can, through a criticism that was meant to be internal, perhaps a little more realistic view of the United Nations.The two letters need not be used like enchantments every time discussing foreign policy priorities and allocations.