Who holds the United Nations accountable? That’s an appropriate question posed recently by Anne Applebaum in a Washington Post article. Her answers are not flattering to the agency and the people in it.

Optimists consider the U.N. an “international community.” Instead, Applebaum writes, it is a collection of political appointees whose activities are, by ordinary government or business standards, subjected to shockingly little oversight. The United Nations, through its spokespeople, likes to tell nations and their leaders what to do, but who or what factors into making the U.N. more effective and responsible?

Says Applebaum: “Certainly, given how much importance is sometimes attributed to the United Nations, it is odd how little notice has been taken of what may be the worst U.N. scandal ever. Tucked away in arms inspector Charles Duelfer’s report on Iraqi weapons — this is the report mostly remembered for its ‘no weapons’ conclusion — are allegations that the United Nations’ oil-for-food program had, at the time of the (U.S.) invasion of Iraq, degenerated almost entirely into a money-laundering scheme. Remember: This was a program set up for humanitarian reasons. It was supposed to help ordinary Iraqis obtain food and medicine, despite economic sanctions. But not only did it help generate some $11 billion that went directly into secret Iraqi government bank accounts — that’s how Saddam Hussein built all of those palaces — it provided massive bribes, in the form of ‘oil vouchers,’ to a long list of Saddam’s friends and advocates around the world.”

A Danish newspaper, Aarhus, comments: “The United Nations’ increasing mightlessness in a world where terrorism is becoming a growing threat against international peace and stability became evident in connection with the Iraq war. The United States and Britain decided to act on their own. Only afterward, the United Nations entered the stage. … It must be said that it is time that the United Nations kept its role as a peacekeeping and conflict-solving organization.”

How likely is that ever to occur?

Back to Anne Applebaum: “Because it is accountable to no one, an international organization is never going to be good at managing large, long-term projects involving a lot of money or a lot of soldiers, either. For that reason, the United Nations should never be confused with legitimately elected governments or America’s historical allies. A decision to ‘send in the United Nations’ is never going to be the full solution to any problem.”

When has a U.N. send-in been truly effective?

Applebaum is one of many who are appalled about the pathetic U.N. record in the Iraq war scenario. If there ever has been an example of ineffectiveness on the world stage, that is among the poorest.

Any declarations about solving world problems of a weighty nature through the U.N. ring hollow whether they come from political candidates or Pollyanna herself.