One big problem for the failure of the United Nation’s collective security and the end of global conflicts is that getting all these countries with totally different agendas to agree on stuff is like herding cats. The UN Security Council, where the big decisions happen, has the “P5” countries with veto power (the US, Russia, China, the UK, and France). That means any one of them can just say “nope” to a resolution, even if everyone else is on board. Talk about frustrating!
Then there’s the UN’s love for talking things out. While diplomacy is great, it can be painfully slow. When there’s a crisis on the horizon, we don’t have the luxury of waiting around for everyone to agree on what to do. By the time they get their act together, it’s often too late.
Plus, the UN doesn’t have its own army. It has to rely on member countries to chip in troops for peacekeeping missions. But not everyone’s eager to send their soldiers into the fray, especially if it doesn’t directly benefit their national interests. This lack of commitment can make UN peacekeeping efforts a bit toothless.
Oh, and don’t get me started on how the UN struggles with modern conflicts. It’s still set up for old-school wars between countries, but nowadays, we’ve got civil wars, terrorists, and all sorts of messy stuff. The UN’s playbook isn’t always up to the task.
Lastly, some folks think the UN plays favorites, showing bias toward certain countries or regions. That doesn’t sit well with a lot of nations, making them less likely to cooperate or listen to UN decisions.
In a nutshell, the UN’s collective security efforts have hit some roadblocks. They’ve got to figure out how to make decisions faster, deal with today’s complex conflicts, and win back the trust of everyone at the global table if they want to keep the peace effectively.