Over the past several decades, the United Nations (UN) has been blamed repeatedly for either not acting swiftly and/or effectively enough, or simply not acting at all, in the face of a potential or actual genocidal event. In light of the fact that the UN is mandated, under its own Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (UNCG) and under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to act to prevent or intervene in the case of potential or actual genocide, such criticism is understandable. And yet, it is rather ironic - not to mention, hypocritical - that various member states disparage the inaction of the UN when, in many cases, it is those very states that are responsible for deterring, if not outright preventing, the UN from acting in a timely or adequate fashion. This is especially true of the members of the UN Security Council, who basically control what the United Nations does and does not do in the way of intervention and prevention of genocide. It i s also true that "...the United Nations is not a humanitarian, but a political, organization, and its humanitarian goals are at the play of political forces, pressure groups and blocs, in an arena where delegates pursue the divisive interests of the states they represent". This, of course, complicates why, how, when and where the United Nations acts, reacts, or neglects to act in regard to various genocidal situations.
