There was a time when a single UN soldier at a UN checkpoint was a powerful symbol. The peacekeeper's weapon was not the rifle slung over the shoulder, but UN credibility; one lonely soldier represented a world community of states, and the Security Council's will for peace. Not any more.
Today in East Timor, UN employees are abandoned to their fate by the organisation they serve, while colleagues shelter from a rampaging militia, huddled together with the people they came to help, people who have fought through razor wire to reach the sanctuary of the UN flag.
There were similar scenes in Rwanda in 1994, where desperate people also sought UN help, only to be abandoned later to terror and murder. So sickened was he by what happened in Rwanda, that the force commander of the blue helmets there, the Canadian Lieut Gen Romeo Dallaire, would later conclude that the UN exists only as a camouflage for the schemes and interests of its most powerful members.
Abandoned along with his small force by the Security Council, who did not even bother to re-supply him with food and water, he said it was the Alamo.
Those taking part in the UN Assistance Mission for East Timor (UNAMET) and many of them are risking life and limb for democracy, have doubtless concluded the same; that the UN is a convenient cover-up in order to hide the inadequacies of the individual member states who are loathe to intervene even when there is a moral imperative.
The situation in Rwanda in 1993-1994 and in East Timor today are terrifyingly similar. In both cases there was an attempt by the Security Council to help to create democracy. In Rwanda and in East Timor, everyone warned there would be trouble, and these were easy and overt predictions for in both cases an armed militia was on the loose. And in each country there was a powerful government army apparently "powerless" to do anything about the violence against pro-democracy supporters. In the case of Rwanda, the attempt to create democracy ended in a genocide of one million people.
The fascist thugs in Rwanda and in East Timor learned much from the immediate past history of the UN, not the least that the commitment to peace and security today is such that the prime consideration in every UN mission is not its success, but how much it will cost, with continual pressure from the US in the Security Council to cut the UN budget. So short of money was the mission for Rwanda that in this case there was not even any razor wire to hide behind. For the rest of us the lessons from the past are simple; even for limited success, UN field operations need advanced planning, clear mandates, trained peacekeepers, assured financing, an effective and integrated UN command, logistical support and they have to be sustained by a united and purposeful Security Council.
None of these requirements existed for either Rwanda and few of them for East Timor. Everyone knows that the transition period, between dictatorship and democracy is the most dangerous and yet the Security Council accepted that during the East Timorese campaign, and its transition to democracy that the army of Indonesia - which had held power for 23 years - would be responsible for security. The referendum was postponed twice because of violence. And did the Security Council have a contingency plan? It is unlikely. Yet in truth, no one should have been taken by surprise by the murderous rampage in East Timor.
All power now to Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, whose quiet diplomacy is bearing down on the Indonesian government to end the violence, and on the Australians to provide troops for an intervention force.
Mr Annan knows better than most what is at stake; it was his job in May and June 1994, as UN Under Secretary General in charge of peacekeeping, to try to find troops to go to Rwanda. His lack of success in this endeavour is etched on his memory.
To have encouraged the creation of democracy, as in Rwanda, and to have sponsored an independence referendum in East Timor only then to abandon the people who were promised so much, is a stain that will never be erased. In many ways it is too later for East Timor - certainly for the hundreds who have just been killed and for the thousands driven from their homes.
Each of the governments of the 15 member countries of the Security Council must shoulder the blame for this. Along with the five permanent members of the council they are currently: the Netherlands, (President for September) Namibia, Bahrain, Gabon, Gambia, Slovenia, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, Malaysia.
For 20 years the meetings of the Security Council held to devise what is commonly called UN policy have taken place in secret; were these meeting still held in public, as the founders of the UN intended, then the whole world could hear policies of each member government, faced with decisions on international peace and security issues, and each government's scandalous and shameful excuse for not acting at all.
In the case of Rwanda I have managed to get hold of the minutes of the secret discussions held by the council while the genocide in Rwanda was taking place, a document which particularly shames both Britain and the US, two countries who argued forcefully against any action at all. At one point in these proceedings, Madeleine Albright, then the US Ambassador to the UN, made the case that the UN should only help those who can help themselves - an interesting slant on UN's role in the world.
It is the five permanent members of the Security Council who must share special responsibility for the UN's chaos, and Britain in particular, whose much vaunted ethical foreign policy lies in tatters in Dili. Britain, it is interesting to recall, has just promised the UN 8,000 rapid reaction troops, put on stand-by for the UN in order to take part in emergency operations.
It was criminally irresponsible of the Security Council not to have pressed for firmer action for East Timor days ago, when the militia on the streets was testing to see exactly how far it could go.
The choice now is stark. Only an armed international force can safeguard the current UN mission and protect the Timorese who voted overwhelmingly for independence last week.
While we continue to anguish at the world's agony, we tolerate a Security Council which casually mandates the impossible, refuses adequate resources for operations, blames "the UN" when things go wrong, and walks away from problems which entail risk and cost.
It is the member governments of the UN which have corrupted the UN system, and member governments that have brought racism into the heart of the UN system. For while Europe and America had the resources for Kosovo, there was no effort at all for Rwanda, and little action so far for East Timor.
We have clearly reached a stage in world affairs where morality plays no part at all. And when we give up on the UN, on the symbol of a single blue helmet and UN credibility, we will be giving up any hope that the future can be any better than the past.
Linda Melvern is an author and journalist. She is completing a book on the circumstances of the genocide in Rwanda to be published next spring.