That's the case made by Rosemary Richter over at The Times. It is a notion gathering impetus in the USA.
Those in favour say that the UN is an inefficient organisation which lends false legitimacy to repressive regimes and has effectively collaborated with the worst of human activity by criminal bureaucratic delays and excuses. What you believe to be right, they might say, does not become wrong because China says so.
Those against are often willing to concede that the UN is flawed, but point to the fact that at least there is a super-national organisation with some kind of moral legitimacy and weight, which can point to some successes, particularly in the humanitaran field - attempting to reform it, they would say, if far more productive - and acting outside its aegis like this will effectively destroy it.
What do you think?
