Ragarding the United Nations illegitimacy

What is the United Nations and more so who is the United Nations? Some say it is the first step to a world government, other see it as a tool to distribute peace and a place to negotiate. But finally, both are wrong, as I have been wrong for a long time in my assessment of the United Nations.

Despite popular European belief, the United Nations is not a tool to distribute peace and a place to negotiate for the different nations. It is not a round table, where the entire community can come to a general aggrement.
However, it is a fully funded intergovernment-panel of beaurocrats and politicians. It is a body where democracies and dictatorships are equally welcomed and where human rights often end at the side table.

It also is not the socialist European dream of a world government, because there has never been constitution that has been ratified by the only legal body capable of forming states: The People. Also, it couldn't be a democratic body with liberal rights as a foundation, because this would be contradicted by the very existence of the dictatorships within the United Nations.

So, what else is it? It is a moloch created by socialist governments and fully funded by the stronger nations to display good will to their own people. It is a organisation that has outgrown its usefullness by being too corrupt and far too expensive and inefficient.
It neither had any chance in securing peace, nor have their means to deliver Development Aid ever succeeded. Instead the UN grew year after year, while still failing in all their objective goals. If something like this occured in a company or in a legitimated government (if there is such a thing), then the voters or the shareholders would take action and change the course. But none of this is going to happen to the UN, it will even grow further and it is not the guilt of the USA as many Europeans say.
The UN is heavily influenced by NGO's (Special Interest groups) than by any government. This can easily be proven by the agendas that have been released and are almost word-to-word copies of Greenpeace and other concerned Leftist institutions.

So, why I had always admired the possibility of a intergovernment panel to discuss global problems and more so to discuss differences before going to war in a neutral area, this is not what the UN is. Instead thugs and thieves carry the word, those little buggers like North Korea, Iraq, Syria and Iran. All those countries, which are, not even to the most socialdemocratic person of this world, democratic or constitutional nations, have a vote in the United Nations, there word is equal to democratic and peacefull nations like Poland, Italy or Ireland.
This is, in my eyes, an insult to those countries and a disgrace of any organisation that plans to promote peace to the world.

That's why I support the idea of Tom DeWeese (here) to abolish the UN.

He has a good summary of the state of the UN:

Today, fifty years after the inception of the United Nations, the
international community is a dangerous place. Instead of peaceful,
prosperous, stable trading partners, the world is full of brutal, murdering
dictatorshipswhich starve and torture their own people while threatening the
security of their neighbors, as once-great powers cower and use
diplomatic doublespeak to ignore responsibility. Most of these
international thugs have two things in common. 1) Each has a voice
and a vote in the United Nations. 2) None would be a threat if they
didn't.