ABSTRACT
The UN is often accused by journalists and seasoned commentators of having failed to act to resolve crises, of having not done enough, or indeed in some instances of having done too much. In the Iraqi crisis of 2003, the UN was perceived as having ‘failed’ to agree, thus leaving America, along with Britain and Spain, to pursue independent military action against Iraq. Of course, claims of failure may have some justification, as in the Rwandan case, where some suggest that the UN might have prevented genocide, or possibly UN peacekeepers could have stopped the murder of people in the UN safe haven of Srebrenica. In levelling such accusations at the UN, it is interesting to note that many commentators see the UN as a highly purposeful actor, rather than a complex organisation reflective of its members’ own interests and concerns. In effect, this means that their expectations are often unrealistic and greater than what might be reasonably expected of the UN in many crises.
