The UN's Utility: Only When It Serves the Empire
When Donald Trump, or any US president for that matter, disparages the United Nations, a certain faction of the media invariably cries foul, urging its 'revitalization' rather than its 'sidelining.' This framing, as seen in The Independent, pivots on the notion that the UN is a global good under siege from populist rhetoric, rather than a geopolitical instrument often constrained by its most
powerful members. What these analyses invariably omit is the UN's tortured history of selective enforcement and outright circumvention by the very powers now feigning concern. The United States, since the Korean War in 1950 and certainly through the 2003 Iraq invasion – which lacked any UN Security Council mandate – has routinely bypassed or manipulated the organization when its resolutions
conflict with Washington's strategic objectives. This isn't a new phenomenon; it's a documented pattern rooted in the UN Security Council's veto power, allowing any of its five permanent members to freeze action, as the US has done 46 times since 1970 to shield Israel from accountability, a fact carefully excluded from polite discourse. The current lament over the UN's supposed irrelevance is,
therefore, less an urgent call for reform and more a strategic re-positioning. It's a plea to restore the UN's image as a legitimate arbiter, provided it remains pliable to the agendas of its primary funders, like the roughly $18.6 billion the US contributes annually to various UN entities. One might wonder why, if the UN's 'relevance' is truly paramount, its charter’s principles of national