Do we always choose the new ones instead of repair them?
Did we make it all the time or is this a new way of living.
Did countries always denies to repair old infrastructure to build new shiny ones?
What caught me in The Economist‘s 20 Oct. issue was that article named “Captain Sensible”. It was about when countries choose to build new flashy projects over repairing and maintenance old ones. Article’s main idea was if governments divert more money into maintenance there might be greater gains than many vanity projects.
Indeed the reason that topic caught me is did we always chose like this?
This week (Sept.27) leaders from all over the world are gathering at the United Nation in New York to exchange their views on mankind’s most compelling problems. the main theme speaks for itself. “Making the United Nations relevant (applicable) to all people”.
The theme name is telling (conspicuous). It covers (encapsulates) the real challenges the organization is facing: the body is suffering from extraordinary(unprecedented) crisis of credibility.
United Nation’s Security Council’s failure to keep its promise of promoting peace and security around the globe. U.N.’s body failed to prevent atrocities (horror) and unable to take necessary steps to content the suffering of refugees.
Amid pressure from the critics the organization divided into two camps on what to do. You can say one side as reformists (likes to reform the U.N. to address the flaws (shortcomings) and other side prefers to exploit U.N.’s weaknesses to subvert (undermine) the liberal international order.
Unilateralist steps damages the existing system and undermines multilateralism. Collective leadership of countries that aim to resolve key global changes helps to end the monopoly of small number of nations. If this situation goes on u.n. produces despair. Many leaders denunciate