"The United Nations was not set up to be a reformatory. It was assumed that you would be good before you got in and not that being in would make you good"

John Foster Dulles’ assertion about the purpose and nature of the United Nations reveals a foundational expectation behind international organizations. The statement draws attention to the original intent of the UN’s founders: it was established with the presumption that only nations committed to certain standards of conduct and goodwill would be admitted. The organization was envisioned as a forum for collaboration among nations that already recognized the value of peaceful coexistence, justice, and respect for international law, rather than as an institution designed to reform or redeem members with problematic behavior.

Dulles’ perspective underscores a distinction between an organization designed for cooperative governance and one designed as a corrective institution. He suggests that the United Nations, unlike schools, prisons, or reformatories, was never designed to fix or rehabilitate errant states, but rather to provide a platform for those that had already professed adherence to the principles of the Charter. Underlying his argument is the assumption that an effective international body must be built on a baseline of trust and mutual respect. The admission criteria themselves act as a filter, ensuring that the members broadly align with the core values and aims of the organization, such as maintaining international peace and security, promoting social progress, and upholding human rights.

Furthermore, Dulles may be implying a limitation within the structure of the UN: if its membership includes states that are not genuinely committed to its principles, its efficacy can be compromised. The expectation was not that the United Nations would transform the moral standing or political behavior of its members, but that it would operate more effectively if its members had already internalized the principles for which the organization stands. His reflection raises questions about the challenges inherent in international organizations when ideals collide with political realities, and whether reforms are necessary when original assumptions about the quality of membership are not met.