http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21058805-7583,00.html (couldn't find the actual article online, but this one at least refers to it)

The idea of an exclusive organization, in which failed states and dictatorships don't get to join, or at least, do not get as strong a voice as democratic nations do has some appeal - but using NATO as the model is flawed. The core value of the UN is that it is an institution created to foster understanding, dialogue and peace. An antiquated cold war military alliance would not serve in any means to replace the UN, it would merely serve to solidify US and western hegemony.

The question you have to ask before you start critisising the UN for all its obvious flaws is what do you want it to be? Its resolutions now are toothless, the security council antiquated, the general assembly flawed in its consensus-based nature, that ultimately produces watered down resolutions. UN reform has been on the agenda since the 90s, in the time of Boutros-Boutros Ghali. To be effective, it needs international support and cooperation - it needs to be independent financialy (ala the Tobin Tax). The lack of support it has recieved is indicitave that the dominant powers of the world do not want the UN. It doesnt work with their aganda. Who'd want peace when you can profit!

The UN is the sum of its parts. If it is toothless, it is because the powers that be have made it that way by refusing to allow the reforms and independence it needs.

The Security Council has ruled on this, and yet Iran's president makes this statement.

Welcome to the United Nations. This is what you get when an organisation doesn't reform for 60+ years......

Ban Ki-Moon is in for a tough lot, and i only hope that he rises to the task - his recent appointments don't really inspire a whole lotta confidence though.