The 50th anniversary of the United Nations has passed. Fifty years of history, idealism, achievement and controversy were supposed to be celebrated in New York at the U.N. building.

But the usual circus that accompanies a large gathering of world leaders took center stage, with massive security, throngs of demonstrators, enmity between the member states all combining for an entertaining weekend at least.

Russia attacked the Security Council for bypassing it on the Bosnia peace plan. Castro attacked the industrialized nations for using the United Nations for their own ends. Everyone called for internal reform. And New York’s own mayor attacked Yassir Arafat, now an elected leader of the fledgling Palestinian state, calling him a terrorist and enraging everyone over his lack of diplomatic sensitivity. Welcome to the party!

The anniversary is certainly a great occasion. The United Nations has accomplished much, but the problems facing it and the disunity of its members were all too evident last weekend.

That is unfortunate. Many have lost sight of the reason for the U.N.’s formation in 1945. World War Two was a truly horrifying event. The distant memories of “the good war,” in which we were fighting for freedom and against fascism, cover up the awful truth of what was a brutal conflict, one which saw advanced technology help create a slaughter the likes of which we will hopefully never see again. The Soviet Union alone lost 20 million people on the Eastern Front, and the war ended with the advent of the nuclear age. The world needed a forum for discussion and cooperation to avoid an even more horrifying conflict.

What it got was the United Nations. Started with high ideals and goals, it has worked as a forum for discussion and mediation of crises, but it has also become a bloated giant with too many missions to perform. No one has defined exactly what the United Nations should be doing on the world stage, and the 180-plus member states can’t agree on what its missions are either. Getting 108 people to agree on anything is difficult enough; getting 180 sovereign nations to agree on where their leaders should stand for the group picture is a real challenge. Getting them to reach a consensus or compromise on U.N. policy is beyond hope. Should it strictly be a forum? Should it be the world’s policeman? Should it be an agency for advancement and relief? Everyone has an answer, and no answer is the same.

Some have suggested that the United Nations should evolve into a world government. Of course, some right-wing extremists have suggested that it already is; watch for those black helicopters and stock up on canned goods and bullets.

The idea that the United Nations could work as a world government is pretty laughable. No matter how closely intertwined the world’s nations become, there will always be some level of sovereignty. No nations would willingly turn over its decision-making ability to a worldwide governing body. And smaller is better in government. Just look at the world’s major nations now; all of them are too big for their own good, and have serious problems. Even Canada, a small industrialized nation, is facing a possible breakup. Small towns have problems with effective government and reaching consensus among the governed. Just imagine trying to govern 5 billion people.

Then there is the peacekeeping mission, one which the United Nations has attempted to perform with varying success since the 1950s. It’s really pretty simple; when warring parties want the United Nations to come in and monitor a peace treaty, the United Nations succeeds. When the United Nations attempts to bring peace to an area where there is still fighting and no one wants to cool off, the United Nations looks like a squad of clowns. U.N. command, with its various restrictions on when and how the troops on the ground can engage local combatants, is unpopular with every nation which contributes forces to a peacekeeping mission. A U.N. army, suggested by some to alleviate the command problem, is also unworkable. Who exactly would the soldiers in it owe allegiance to? And who would command such an army? Basic questions such as the language the army would speak can’t even be answered, and no nation would commit troops or material to such a project.

Peacekeeping should be regionalized, as is now happening in Bosnia. NATO is taking over the mission there, and will be much more effective in it than the standard U.N. force usually sent. Local forces near the war zone, with a common interest in seeing the war ended and perhaps even a common culture and language would be much more effective than a U.N. force made up of soldiers from places with no real interest or background in the area of conflict.

The United Nations has a major budgetary problem as well. The United States is withholding almost $1.5 billion in funds due to conflicts over missions and purposes, and other nations just don’t have the money to give to the United Nations.

The United Nations has its place. It isn’t the final authority in the world, it can’t be the planet’s police department, and it can’t solve all the world’s problems. But it must remain at the very least as a forum for discussion between governments, for that is one of the surest ways to avoid conflict, and that was the whole reason for its founding 50 years ago.

Kevin S. Kirby is a senior in journalism mass communication from Louisville, Ky. He has a B.A. in political science from the University of Wyoming.