The United Nations (UN) was founded in 1945 with the noble aim of maintaining international peace and security. Yet, nearly eight decades later, the organization stands as a shadow of its original vision—paralyzed by geopolitical rivalries, held hostage by veto-wielding powers, and rendered increasingly irrelevant in resolving the world’s most pressing conflicts. From the Israel-Iran tensions to the Gaza crisis, the Kashmir dispute, and the endless infighting in Africa, the UN has failed to act as an effective mediator. The Secretary-General, instead of being a moral authority, has been reduced to a helpless figurehead whose pleas for peace are ignored by warring nations and powerful Security Council members alike. If the UN can no longer fulfill its primary mandate, then it is time to ask: What is its purpose?
The fundamental problem with the UN lies in its structure. The Security Council’s five permanent members (P5)—the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom—hold veto power, allowing any one of them to block resolutions that threaten their interests. This has turned the UN into a battleground for great power politics rather than a platform for conflict resolution.
The ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is a glaring example of the UN’s impotence. Despite overwhelming global condemnation of Israel’s military actions, the US has repeatedly vetoed ceasefire resolutions, shielding its ally from accountability. The Secretary-General’s appeals for restraint are dismissed, and UN agencies like UNRWA are defunded and demonized. If the UN cannot even enforce its own humanitarian principles when a nuclear-armed state flouts international law, then what good is it?
The recent exchange of missile strikes between Israel and Iran further exposed the UN’s irrelevance. Rather than mediating de-escalation, the Security Council remained deadlocked, with Western powers backing Israel and Russia and China refusing to take a strong stance. The Secretary-General’s calls for restraint were ignored, proving that the UN has no real authority when major powers are involved.
The Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan has been on the UN agenda since 1948, yet no meaningful progress has been made. India dismisses UN resolutions as outdated, while Pakistan uses them for rhetorical leverage. The UN’s failure to enforce its own mandates has left Kashmiris trapped in a cycle of violence and repression. If the organization cannot even facilitate dialogue after 75 years, why does it still pretend to care?
From Sudan to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia to the Sahel, Africa remains a hotbed of conflict. The UN’s peacekeeping missions (MONUSCO, MINUSMA, etc.) have been criticized for inefficiency, corruption, and even complicity in abuses. The Security Council pays lip service to African crises but refuses to authorize robust interventions when they do not align with Western or Russian interests.
The current Secretary-General, António Guterres, has become a symbol of the UN’s impotence. His statements on Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts are met with indifference. When he invoked Article 99 of the UN Charter to force attention on Gaza, the Security Council barely reacted. If the UN’s top diplomat cannot influence world events, why does the position still exist?
Guterres should have resigned long ago—not out of cowardice, but as a moral statement. By staying, he legitimizes a broken system. A resignation would force the world to confront the UN’s failures. But like the organization he leads, he seems content with symbolic gestures rather than real change.
The harsh truth is that the UN is no longer a neutral arbiter—it is a tool of the P5, especially the US. Washington uses the UN to sanction its enemies (Iran, North Korea, Venezuela) while shielding its allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia). Russia and China do the same, vetoing resolutions on Syria and Myanmar. The General Assembly’s votes are non-binding, and the International Court of Justice’s rulings are ignored when inconvenient (e.g., US sanctions on Nicaragua, Israel’s occupation of Palestine).
For smaller nations, the UN provides a platform to voice grievances, but that is all. For the powerful, it is a stage to perform diplomacy while acting unilaterally behind the scenes. The UN’s agencies (WHO, UNICEF, UNHCR) still do vital humanitarian work, but its political role is fading.
The UN has two options: radical reform or dignified dissolution.
Abolish the Veto: The P5’s veto power is the root of the UN’s paralysis. Either remove it or expand permanent membership to include Africa, Latin America, and more Asian representation.
Empower the General Assembly: Make its resolutions binding, at least on non-security issues.
Strengthen the Secretary-General’s Role: Give the office real enforcement powers, not just moral pleas.
Alternative Alliances: If reform is impossible, nations should consider regional blocs (AU, ASEAN, OIC) as alternative peacekeeping bodies.
If none of this happens, the UN will continue its slow decline into irrelevance—a talking shop for diplomats while bombs fall on Gaza, Kashmir, and Sudan. The Secretary-General should either demand real change or step aside. The world no longer has time for empty gestures.
The choice is clear: The UN must reclaim its purpose or admit it has none.
