Last Sunday marked United Nations (UN) Day, which Harvard will celebrate this week with a series of events including a debate on Security Council reform, a student discussion of the future role of the UN, a Science Center exhibition, an international food festival and cultural show and a film screening. Each is intended to spark campus discussion of the United Nations' status today.

I recently argued with a Boston public high school teacher about the importance of American students, and especially citizens, possessing an awareness of international affairs. "Does it really matter to us what is going on in Kosovo or East Timor?" the teacher asked. The teacher decried the amount of American tax dollars devoted to supporting corrupt governments, sponsoring American military campaigns in other sovereign states or maintaining impotent international institutions such as the UN.

I was discouraged to hear this latent advocacy for isolationism, which seems so incongruous with America's interconnectedness with other parts of the world. But I have heard this teacher's view articulated by many of my classmates as well, suggesting that dominant public opinion towards the UN is either negative or just apathetic.

Clearly, the United Nations has not always successfully implemented its decisions. It suffers from the same ailments as any bureaucracy: slow response time, lack of follow-through on policy changes, insufficient accountability measures and internal performance incentives. And as a body of sovereign nation-states, the UN has limited power to enforce its measures.