If the history of the United Nations tells us anything, it's that international relations have always been fraught, that it's a good idea to have all representatives together but nations remain steadfastedly ununited, with a switch in allegiance being about the only change in that respect.
I do find it kind of silly whenever a government starts arcing up about decisions made by the UN. Getting a majority of regions to align over an issue is an impressive task, so when they do aim their sites at something, that should be given its due attention.The member nation who isn't doing what the rest of the world thinks it should is on shaky ground. No doubt about it.
This is so even when the plurality dictates a differing approach to animal welfare, a discrete notion on human rights, an attitude held widely enough to cause a country to break ranks and discriminate against one of its ethnic groups or a social or cultural sector.
The obvious correlative is in considering the cooperation that does occur.
What the UN's detractors fail to take into account is that the vaccuum that would exist if there was no grouping would not be filled by the practice of nations charging off and doing their own thing. Nor is it in any way desirable when one nation grouping decides for everyone else which atrocity to avert, whose natural resources to exploit, and how much power is to be alotted, if any.
Like democracy and capitalism, the dominant forces in our nation, the UN is imperfect and fails repeatedly to discharge its duty sufficient to change a dangerous trend or save caught up innocents. We all have to weigh up the comparative benefit and cost. But it would be a mistake to withdraw, as Indonesia once did, because, seventy years down the track, it's tantamount to declaring yourself a rogue state.