Opinion | The United Nations Has Lost Its Relevance

In the 1950s, UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld once ingeniously joked that the UN "was not created in order to bring us to heaven, but in order to save us from hell." If we measure the UN by that quote, the international body has been effective. Since its inception in 1945, we have not had another world war. However, we are on the brink of one if the UN fails to tackle the ongoing geopolitical conflicts and humanitarian crises that threaten international peace and security on a daily basis.

In the face of the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas wars, along with increasing global problems, the UN has repeatedly found it challenging to organise suitable multilateral responses. There is a growing sentiment around the world that the UN has increasingly become incapable and ineffective as an organisation.

So, as the world observes October 24 each year as United Nations Day to commemorate the anniversary of its official creation, it merits a look at the relevance of its existence. Globally, there have been demands for an overhaul of the UN with more equitable representation and institutional reforms.

The UN As An Institution

After the failure of the League of Nations, the UN was founded in 1945 to prevent further wars and help nations cooperate in tackling some of the major problems facing the world after World War II. When the UN was formed, it had 51 member states, which has since increased to 193. Former US President Franklin D. Roosevelt coined the term 'United Nations'. Since then, the UN has remained the primary global organisation addressing issues that cross national borders and cannot be solved by one nation alone. Along with maintaining international peace and security, the UN protects human rights, delivers humanitarian aid, promotes sustainable development, and upholds international law.

No one can deny the good work that the UN system and its agencies do, from providing immunisations to sheltering refugees. The UN has also been a norm-setter when member states have allowed it. Time and again, it has expanded its ambit to tackle new challenges such as AIDS, the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals), climate change, and big data.

Its 2030 Agenda and the SDGs serve as a binding force for the international community. However, there is a hitch: for the countries of the Global South, the failure of rich countries to invest in fulfilling the UN's SDGs is a major concern for developing nations.

The UN's aid programmes also require reform. While they have saved lives, they are often slow, bureaucratic, and plagued by mismanagement. Similarly, in the area of human rights, the UN leadership is hesitant to call out powerful nations for their abuses.

Compromised Role

Our transnational problems require a stronger global governance body. Yet these same problems have underscored the shortcomings of the world's premier multilateral institution.

The repeated misuse of veto power by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC)-namely, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States (the so-called P5)-for their own parochial purposes has raised questions about the credibility of the UN.

"The UN does not represent the world of today. The UN created in 1945 has remained frozen in time. Its institutional structure remains unchanged even as its agenda has evolved over the past seven decades," says Rajiv Bhatia, distinguished fellow at Gateway House and former Indian ambassador.
The UNSC has been woefully weak in confronting the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and other conflicts around the globe.

In its current form, the UNSC has failed to preserve international peace and security when a permanent member is an aggressor or a friend of a P5 member acts aggressively in a conflict.
Since Russia's formal invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, and its constant use of veto power to block UNSC actions, there have been renewed criticisms of the body and revived debates about increasing its efficacy and representativeness.

Following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and the subsequent Israeli military response, the context of these discussions has shifted. The US has faced severe criticism for defending Israel by vetoing several UNSC resolutions related to the ongoing conflicts and the resulting humanitarian toll in Gaza.

Although the UNSC passed resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire, both Russia and Israel have continued their military actions, taking advantage of the absence of enforcement provisions.
The current conflicts also exemplify a structural failure of the UN, highlighting the imbalance of power between a small group of powerful countries and the rest of the world. Both the General Assembly and the UNSC have voted multiple times on resolutions calling for ceasefires in Ukraine and Gaza but have failed to act. Since only the UNSC can authorise interventions to halt conflicts, a single veto from a P5 member is sufficient to thwart the collective will of UN member countries to end wars, crimes against humanity, or genocide.

There is a widening ideological divide among the five veto-wielding P5 members, typically with Russia and China on one side and the United States, the UK, and France on the other. The UNSC has failed to take action on conflicts in Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Sudan, and countless other crises because one or more P5 members blocked the resolutions.

"The way forward is reform and reconfiguration of a post-World War II institution into an organisation more suitable for the needs of the 21st-century world. The UN organs, especially the UNSC, must have better representation from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The UNSC, without India as a permanent member, will remain handicapped," says Mr Bhatia.

The UN has a summoning power, bringing together leaders on a global platform. It has a voice through its Secretary-General and has been able to give a platform to suppressed causes at a time when civil society's space is shrinking. The world eagerly awaits its pursuit of multilateral solutions.

(The author is Contributing Editor, NDTV)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author