Is Trump right to question purpose of United Nations?

If Donald Trump wasn't already in a bad mood when he arrived at the United Nations in New York, he was soon in high dudgeon when an escalator broke down the moment he and Melania stepped onto it. Any hopes his good humour might be restored were dashed when he arrived at the podium to discover the teleprompter had also failed.

- SEAN O'GRADY

He then proceeded to lay into the organisation at its 80th General Assembly, traditionally a reverential and self-congratulatory affair involving prime ministers, presidents, kings, princes and chancellors. Trump was heard in stony silence, punctuated by occasional gasps of disbelief. His scepticism was rooted in some inconvenient truths...

What did Trump tell the world?

Lots, but as far as the UN itself is concerned he bemoaned its ineffectiveness, expressed in saloon bar terms: “What is the purpose of the United Nations? The UN has such tremendous potential. I've always said it. It has such tremendous, tremendous potential, but it's not even coming close to living up to that potential. For the most part, at least for now, all they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up.”

Is he right?

Yes and no. It’s a huge organisation and can only ever be as good as its member states allow. In some areas, the UN and its many agencies historically have fulfilled their functions well. The International Atomic Energy Agency, for example, remains a trusted watchdog overseeing the nuclear nonproliferation agreement and conducting investigations into countries accused of acquiring weapons of mass destruction, such as in Iraq and Iran. However, it has been unable to prevent the spread of such weapons: it has weak powers of enforcement and cannot make any country cooperate, still less give up missiles.