In the euphoria after the Cold War, there was a misplaced notion that the UN could solve every problem anywhere.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The U.N. had such lofty goals to eliminate poverty and stop war and cure diseases and help refugees - things that no one country could do.
We could only solve our problems by cooperating with other countries. It would have been paradoxical not to cooperate. And therefore we needed to put an end to the Iron Curtain, to change the nature of international relations, to rid them of ideological confrontation, and particularly to end the arms race.
Like Canada, we very much wanted the United Nations to be a relevant and effective body. But once those efforts failed, we no longer saw things from a multilateral perspective. For us, now, it is much more basic than that. It is about family.
Well, I think everybody is frustrated by the finances of the U.N. and the inability to solve problems of war and peace.
The reality is that international institutions like the UN can only be as effective as its members allow it to be.
Before and during the first phase of the war his administration repeatedly maligned the UN but now, that Iraq has turned into a quagmire, it is asking the UN for help.
We need the UN, to deal with the threats to our common security from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, not only in the case of Iraq. They must be tackled by the international community together, by strengthening conventions, treaties and agreements.
In a case like Iraq the UN has again shown what important role it plays as the guarantor for protecting international peace and stability in the global political structure.
All the nations they had to deal with, had the same fate.
Whether addressing immediate crises or building long-term foundations of peace, the United Nations will remain committed to solutions that advance the global good.