In fairness, the benefit works both ways. First world countries pay the UN directly. Some of the money is fleeced off by UN public-service structure in wages, benefits and graft, the rest goes to support corrupt third world governments, under the guise of 'development assistance'.
Many governments would collapse if it were not for the aid money, and the rich countries know this. The first world put up with the bitching and carping for more handouts and give them money. In return the third world countries must behave within certain boundaries, or they get cut off the welfare drip.
Because the economies of these countries are based around maximizing aid instead of producing real product, they stay poor. By staying poor they are easier for the first world to control because they are more dependent on the aid.
The first world does not want to see another Taliban, and the third world governments want their welfare money, so the situation is quite cozy.
A popular notion is that the UN is a democratic organization. In fact many of the voting rights belong to corrupt dictatorships. A group of corrupt dictatorships does not make a democracy - just a bigger dictatorship. Suggestions that the UN has some kind of democratic mandate for force is ridiculous. The notion of a group of people having a 'UN Mandate' for some kind of action is little different to saying they have a North Korean or a Cuban mandate. Being employed by murderers and thieves is not a convincing mandate.
An alternative to the UN comprised of democratic countries (who have to asked to join, and who can be expelled by the others simply for being undemocratic) would be a great improvement. It would also reduce the ability of the corrupt governments of impoverished countries from selling their votes for easily taxed aid-money.
See