The UN is a deeply dysfunctional organization.
At the General Assembly level the policy of giving each nation a single vote regardless of whether or not it is democratic, and regardless of its population, or clout in the world, results in a horrific situation in which irrelevant little banana republics and their tin pot dictators buy and sell and trade their votes on any issue in order to stack every UN body with either corrupt officials or with partisans.
"If you give me your vote so my little 20,000 population dictatorship receives a juicy UN grant, then I'll elect you to XYZ body so you can use it as a propaganda organ to lash out at your enemies"
At the Security Council level things are only slightly better. There the organization is restricted to essentially credible nations, democratic or otherwise, which results in a higher level of debate and discussion. However the structure of the UN SC is such that it is a largely toothless talking club, which never really does manage to get around to solving problems. Its absolute paralysis in the face of nuclear arms proliferation, or the genocides in Sudan and Rwanda, fundamentally call into question whether it has any value at all--perhaps if the UN SC did not exist nations would have come together and actually solved a few of these issues, but in deferring to the UN SC on them, essentially guaranteed that NOTHING would be done.
Even strictly as a toothless talking club the UN SC serves little purpose, as these days there are much better talking clubs, like the G8, G20, and the regional clubs like ASEAN, NATO, or the SCO.
A few UN bodies do perform useful functions: The IMF, World Bank, and WHO come to mind, but these organizations are staffed primarily by technocrats and could be made to work with or without the United Nations.
So, should Canada lead by example and withdraw from the UN?
At the General Assembly level the policy of giving each nation a single vote regardless of whether or not it is democratic, and regardless of its population, or clout in the world, results in a horrific situation in which irrelevant little banana republics and their tin pot dictators buy and sell and trade their votes on any issue in order to stack every UN body with either corrupt officials or with partisans.
"If you give me your vote so my little 20,000 population dictatorship receives a juicy UN grant, then I'll elect you to XYZ body so you can use it as a propaganda organ to lash out at your enemies"
At the Security Council level things are only slightly better. There the organization is restricted to essentially credible nations, democratic or otherwise, which results in a higher level of debate and discussion. However the structure of the UN SC is such that it is a largely toothless talking club, which never really does manage to get around to solving problems. Its absolute paralysis in the face of nuclear arms proliferation, or the genocides in Sudan and Rwanda, fundamentally call into question whether it has any value at all--perhaps if the UN SC did not exist nations would have come together and actually solved a few of these issues, but in deferring to the UN SC on them, essentially guaranteed that NOTHING would be done.
Even strictly as a toothless talking club the UN SC serves little purpose, as these days there are much better talking clubs, like the G8, G20, and the regional clubs like ASEAN, NATO, or the SCO.
A few UN bodies do perform useful functions: The IMF, World Bank, and WHO come to mind, but these organizations are staffed primarily by technocrats and could be made to work with or without the United Nations.
So, should Canada lead by example and withdraw from the UN?
