The key reason for it's failings according to this author is the bureaucracy.
One of the reasons the UN was created or transformed out of the league of nations was to prevent world war by providing an avenue of negotiation. By its founding purpose I think it has not done too badly.
There's a moral duty the UN seems to have, but this is an extra purpose to the UN. There are organisations that don't need the echo chambers of other nations that can do the same things, such as doctors without borders.
The author seems to have foreseen that response and gone to pains to point out gratuitous bureaucracy, such as the requirement to wait almost a year to bring new medical staff on to combat the ebola epidemic.
>> "the requirement to wait almost a year to bring new medical staff on to combat the ebola epidemic."
Are you getting this from another source because it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. It mentions taking several weeks to process the forms of a medical worker they needed to see at headquarters. The recruitment system that may take a year to hire someone seems to be a separate issue. I wish the author had went into more detail on that because it's very vague. What is the hiring process? Are two or three interview spread over a year? Do you have to interview several hundred people for a position? It's hard to place any importance on the statistic without more information.
One of the reasons the UN was created or transformed out of the league of nations was to prevent world war by providing an avenue of negotiation. By its founding purpose I think it has not done too badly.
There's a moral duty the UN seems to have, but this is an extra purpose to the UN. There are organisations that don't need the echo chambers of other nations that can do the same things, such as doctors without borders.