[Billthedrill]

It's actually a hypothetical question, as the author shows us. Were it possible to "save" the UN by reforming it, my answer would be a qualified "yes" - it does indeed have a mission, but world government is emphatically not it and never was. One reason it has become so impossibly corrupt is that it has tried to assume that mission in the complete absence of accountability for its members and independent auditing for its affairs. National governments in a similar situation also become corrupt. There is simply too much money not to tempt the virtuous and attract the villains.

But I do think it could serve a useful purpose once its staff stops trying to act like ubermenschen. As an international forum it is unparalleled. As a central coordinator for international relief efforts it could serve well. Were it to limit its activists to those venues I'd be at the forefront of its defense.

But it isn't going to happen, which is why I said the question was hypothetical. The entrenched, parasitical bureaucratic class that now populates its hallways isn't going to give up its sinecure. Volcker is being stonewalled, and Annan isn't alone in enriching himself, his relatives, and his hangers-on with the proceeds a particularly sordid graft. These aren't mosquito-bites, it's serious hemorrhage.

I'm honestly sad about having to say "no" in answer to the question in the headline. Perhaps we can replace it, but it doesn't look like it's going to be worth reforming.

[Esteemed Scholar Jack Bauer]

it ain't fair, i want DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY

[A Navy Vet]

Well said. However, while it does continue to exist in its corrupt ineffectual form, I say, "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer". Just kick them out our living room for now.