Emerged from the charred remains of bombed cities and the cries of a world torn asunder in 1945, the United Nations today appears increasingly toothless as unprecedented headwinds buffet global peace – but no crisis seems to merit more than a yawn in the international room that watches the spectacle with a deafening silence.
Hands of the mighty few continue to wield the weapon of veto to strangle peace efforts at the divided global table – a chilling redux of its predecessor, the League of Nations.
From attacks on Lebanon's sovereignty to the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the smouldering crisis in Ukraine, the UN remains paralysed and all its efforts to enforce peace seem to fall victim to greater security architectures.
With more than 55 conflicts raging across the globe, including genocidal assaults, the reforms in the UN are already a few thousand lives too late.
If any opportunity for meaningful reform ever existed, it vanished almost immediately. A flicker of hope, seen at the second birth of the existing status quo, was almost immediately extinguished.
"A new chapter in the history of the United Nations has begun," proclaimed Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali as the Cold War came to an end, heralding what he described as an "extraordinary opportunity" for reform and progress.
However, in an ironic twist, the opportunity seems to have slipped through the cracks. Today, as wars rage and threats multiply, the global political mood has inexplicably turned inward.
Soon after the end of the Cold War, civil wars in the Balkans, Africa, and the 1994 Rwandan genocide exposed the UN's impotence, drawing sharp criticism while exposing a system unable to respond effectively to the crises of the day.
Historically, attempts to reform the organisation at the highest levels have largely faltered, exposing layers of internal corruption. Under pressure from the Clinton administration, NATO bypassed the UN Security Council to bomb Kosovo, setting a dangerous precedent for unilateral humanitarian interventions.
In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush administration embraced pre-emptive war, casting aside the core principles upon which the UN was founded.
Earlier, under Ronald Reagan, the US distanced itself from the International Court of Justice, and later, it snubbed the new International Criminal Court (ICC) while weakening global arms control frameworks.
Today, Gaza stands as a symbol of devastation—a site of destruction, starvation, and unspeakable atrocities. The suffering of its people once again raises urgent questions about international justice and exposes the double standards that have become painfully apparent. Israeli missiles, tanks, and airstrikes relentlessly batter the homes of helpless Gazans, serving as a glaring example of the failing global order.
Despite this, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s campaign of destruction, which blatantly violates international law, has somehow managed to avoid the scrutiny typically reserved for the actions of other regimes across the world.
Rights groups, including UN rapporteurs, have warned that international law is not obsolete, but rather systematically obstructed. Despite the existence of mechanisms to prevent and punish atrocities such as genocide, the UN's responses have been sluggish and inconsistent.
The system remains hamstrung by the influence of powerful states. The ICC, for instance, has faced intense pressure, particularly in its investigations into Palestine, with progress moving at a painfully slow pace.
On December 2, ICC President Tomoko Akane warned that attacks on the tribunal—largely originating from Washington and Moscow—were "jeopardising its very existence." She pointed to "coercive measures, threats, pressure, and acts of sabotage" against the court, though without naming the US and Russia specifically.
However, observers note that in contrast, cases like Ukraine have seen swift action, which goes on to reveal the blatant double standards at play.
Reforms
Meanwhile, recently, regional powers like Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, Nigeria, and South Africa have pushed for an expansion of the Security Council or permanent seats for themselves.
Some have proposed that France relinquish its permanent seat to the European Union following Brexit, especially after France and Germany shared the presidency of the Security Council for two months in 2019.
In 2021, Britain endorsed Germany’s bid for a permanent seat. Additionally, in January 2024, UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed hope for permanent African representation, citing support from all five permanent members of the Security Council.
However, calls for reform have yet to be answered. Many countries are instead focusing on strengthening their diplomatic influence through other international coalitions.
The debate over Security Council expansion often centres on the balance between legitimacy and effectiveness. In 2013, Saudi Arabia made the rare decision to turn down a non-permanent Security Council seat, stating that it would not serve unless reforms were made to the institution.
Critics of the current system, including advocates of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), argue that the P5’s veto power undermines the Security Council’s ability to act on global crises. For instance, Russia’s vetoes over Security Council action on Ukraine have led some to call for Russia’s removal from the P5.
The criticism had already been growing before the invasion; UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein (2014–2018) repeatedly warned that the veto system granted undue power to the P5, putting the UN’s future at risk without reform.
“Africa wants the veto abolished,” said Sierra Leonean President Julius Maada Bio in August 2024. “However, if UN member states wish to retain the veto, it must be extended to all new permanent members as a matter of justice.”
However, reluctance to use force is not limited to the P5. Aspirants like Brazil, Germany, and India have generally opposed interventions, viewing them as violations of sovereignty.
While R2P proponents criticize the Security Council for its lack of political will, others question the UN’s ability to manage conflict, pointing to the peacekeeping failures in Rwanda, Somalia, and the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s.
Recently, the UN’s handling of the Gaza Strip has come under scrutiny and has reignited debate for reforms, with critics claiming that its delayed and diluted response to calls for a cease-fire has been woefully insufficient.
The truth is, most experts agree, that the system isn’t broken—it is functioning to protect vested interests.
While the Council passes resolutions on a variety of global issues, it often finds itself paralysed when the interests of the major powers are at stake. In cases like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or Israel’s actions in Gaza, the veto power effectively stymies any meaningful response.
One of the most glaring issues with the Security Council is the lack of accountability for its decisions.
Resolutions may be binding on member states, but they carry little weight unless adopted under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which allows for coercive measures such as military intervention or sanctions. Even then, the Council often fails to follow through on its own resolutions.
There is also no legal recourse for states or individuals who are subjected to sanctions or other punitive measures imposed by the Council.
Reform proposals have been on the table for decades, with two main areas of focus: the composition of the Council and the veto power of the permanent members. The current system, based on the power dynamics of the post-World War II era, is widely considered outdated. However, efforts to amend the UN Charter to address these issues have been repeatedly thwarted by the very powers that benefit from the status quo.
France and other states have called for voluntary self-restraint from the permanent members when it comes to using their veto power in cases involving genocide or war crimes, but these calls have largely fallen on deaf ears.
The need for reform has never been more urgent. Today, there are 55 armed conflicts worldwide—the highest number since World War II.
The UN, which was established to prevent such atrocities, must undergo major changes to address these challenges. The veto power remains a significant roadblock to global peace and security, with decisions often serving national interests rather than the common good.
Proposals from the Lichtenstein Initiative suggest that countries using their veto power explain their actions to the General Assembly, and that vetoes be restricted in cases involving mass atrocities. The reforms are essential if the UN is to regain its credibility and fulfil its original mandate to safeguard peace and justice across the globe.
‘Special rights’
In his book, ‘No Enchanted Palace’, Mark Mazower observes: “In other words, the UN, even more than the League, was to be run by the great powers and far less confidence was reposed in international law as a set of norms independent from, and standing above, power politics.”
On the contrary, international law now implicitly recognised “special rights” (and special obligations) for the “great peace-loving states”.
In his thought-provoking book, Mazower argues that the United Nations, much like its predecessor the League of Nations, did not arise from a purely liberal vision of universal rights. Instead, it was a product of Victorian-era "imperial internationalism," an ideological and organisational extension of the British Empire.
He explores the provocative argument through brief portraits of several League of Nations figures who reappeared during the drafting of the UN Charter, most notably Jan Smuts, a South African who championed white racial superiority, and Sir Alfred Zimmern, the leading British proponent of liberal internationalism. Both were part of a broader elite group seeking to "shore up a liberal world order that would be compatible with empire and Anglo-American hegemony”.
According to Mazower, Smuts saw the League as a way to ensure "white leadership of the world," promote a "global civilizing mission," and support British imperial dominance. His reappearance in the 1940s with a draft preamble for the future UN suggests, for Mazower, that the UN was shaped by the same imperial mindset.
Though the UN Charter ultimately affirmed racial equality, and similar ideals were echoed in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
When the UN first convened at its New York home in October 1946, the veto was already baked into the Security Council's structure. The five permanent members were handed this privilege on a silver platter due to their prominence after the Second World War, with the hope that they would act in unison to uphold international peace and security.
Fast forward to today, and the picture tells a different story. Israel's war on Gaza rages on without UN intervention. Resolutions brought to the Security Council are frequently dead on arrival, vetoed by the United States—just as it has consistently torpedoed prior resolutions sanctioning Israel for its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory.