Henry ford is the correct answer :)
I’m pretty sure the answer is false-b
<span>developing their human resources.</span>
Answer: - It can be corrupt. It is often ineffective.
Explanation: - It can be corrupt. (True, lots of nepotism, fake positions, privileges, exorbitant salaries for members of its upper management. Accusations of crime by UN troops).
- It is often ineffective. (Yes and no. It is ineffective because it has no military enforcing force or a system of economic sanctions to force rogue states to comply with its values. However, it is a formidable means of political and public pressure and only for that is better than nothing at all).
- It limits US sovereignty. This is only true if the US let the UN do such thing (it has never happened). The US invaded Panama without a UN mandate. It invaded Vietnam without a UN mandate. It invaded Iraq in 2003 without a UN mandate. China invaded and annexed Tibet in the 1950s and the UN was never able to stop it. Russia invaded several countries and the UN was able to do nothing about it.
- It restricts US foreign policy. Not really, the US is one of the founding Security Council members and can easily ply the UN by refusing to pay its yearly contribution (already happening).
- It includes a small number of nations. (False, most nations on Earth are part of the UN).
- It focuses only on issues related to trade. (False, it focuses on any issue that is relevant to the planet’s welfare).
