The main problem is that the UN is run by the big five nations (the US, UK, France, Russia and the PRC). And whenever atrocities are committed by these five, any of the permanent members can veto any sort of action. Especially if it threatens their interests. That's the reality of geopolitics, unfortunately
So partly that's why, on the other hand, Israel is always slapped with condemnations. 50+ of the Muslim nations barely tolerates its existence. Israel can be easily bullied, and everyone just seethes their teeth whenever the US veto any sort of action to hold Israel accountable (hence also the ZOG and AIPAC conspiracies)
The UN, nevertheless, had some limited successes. Though, as I reiterate, very limited successes mostly in very narrow or technical areas, not in resolving the kinds of big issues, particularly longstanding political conflicts. The UN played their part to end the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and overseen fair elections in countries that were transitioning from dictatorship or civil war.
Some other peacekeeping successes include: Cambodia (UNTAC 1992 - 1993), El Salvador (ONUSAL, 1991 - 1995), Namibia (UNTAG 1989 - 1990), Guatemala (MINUGUA 1996), Tajikistan (UNMOT 1994 - 2000), Mozambique (ONUMOZ 1992 - 1994), Burundi (ONUB 2004 - 2007), and Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL 1999 - 2006).
The UN has also done important work towards eradicating smallpox, coordinating disaster relief, and setting global aviation and shipping standards.
But, yes, the UN does have more failures, like Somalia and Haiti and Bosnia and Rwanda and Lebanon, and itβs simply not equipped for resolving these issues. And every member state has a vote, regardless of its record on governance or human rights. So we have two-thirds of UN members who are not liberal democracies, but authoritarian states, single-party systems, and/or governments with deep corruption. Those governments vote to protect their own power and to shield allies from scrutiny.
The UN at the moment works best as a forum where nations unfriendly with each other can sit down and talk issues. Ironically, it's also in the best interest of the world, for the moment, for the big five to remain there as permanent members. For them to sit together first before firing the nukes. The main aim unfortunately is just to ensure that the next world war didn't break out. The League of Nations failed because the offending nations like Japan just walked out to evade consequences
We can dream of an ideal UN where they actually do shit and world peace is achieved but unfortunately, we have to deal with the reality of 2/3rds of the world being dysfunctional, and not all nations are equal. This unhealthy status quo is something we have to contend with at the moment.
