jo: Actually, UN apologists who invoke the “save the children” defense perpetuate precisely the kind of misguided, collectivist thinking that makes the UN so dangerous. The political and financial resources wasted on the UN could be far better spent.

Once upon a time, UNICEF was basically a charitable agency that helped keep children alive. Ever since the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, it has become an ideological front group that promotes meaningless “children’s causes” in lieu of practical measures to save children. In that same time period, child mortality reductions in the region of greatest need, sub-Saharan Africa, have lagged far behind those in other regions, and rates have actually increased in some areas (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/mdg-factsheets/childmortalityfactsheet.pdf ; also a good editorial in the Lancet – hardly a right-wing mouthpiece – December 2004).

Likewise, the WHO, rather than focusing its resources on eradication of malaria – still by far the greatest worldwide health threat, especially in developing countries – promotes a political agenda targeted at helping third-world countries take on…cigarette companies. This accomplishes basically nothing in terms of health, but it is fashionable enough to make for good fundraising.

I could go on about the UNDP, the World Bank, etc., but the principle is the same: while there may be pockets of good, the UN in all its manifestations is a huge collective, granted immunity from criticism and reform under its “we are the world” banner. The real work of humanitarian aid and economic opportunity gets done by churches, private organizations, and – gasp – capitalist entrepreneurs. To the extent that the UN co-opts, drives out, or creates a moral exemption for this kind of work, it is a big, world-wide negative. Let’s give it our worst.