...having experienced several episodes of embrassment and scepticism about its capacity to maintain the principles it stands for,

I would remove the first comma. Otherwise it looks good to me.

In this day and age the United Nations, having experienced several episodes of embrassment and scepticism about its capacity to maintain the principles it stands for, is not going to perceive this in a very positive light.

I'd say it's grammatical. There are people who would publish this sort of thing, but I find it a bit tedious. It's certainly understandable. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's natural.

It's probably useful as an exercise in writing, but it gives the impression that you're trying to impress us rather than to enlighten us.

Thanks for both of your replies.

Avangi, would it sound more natural and more enlightening if it was made shorter? Should I chop the sentence into two halves?

How does this sound?


Having experienced several episodes of embrassment and scepticism about its capacity to maintain the principles it stands for, the United Nations is not going to perceive this in a ver

In this day and age, The United Nations, having experienced several episodes of embrassment and scepticism about its capacity to maintain the principles it stands for, is not going to perceive this in a very positive light.

I would lose the introductory phrase. Unless you state otherwise, we understand that you are talking about the present.



Out of context

It's better. "In this day and age" doesn't contribute much. I'd try to shorten it more - unless you're having trouble filling space.

After repeatedly being embarrassed by its inability to maintain etc.

"Skepticism" adds a little, but not much.

AvangiAfter repeatedly being embarrassed by its inability to maintain etc.

Better yet.