Mujtoba Ahmed Murshed
As a student of the old school of International Relations devoted to the construction of peace, I am deeply disheartened to witness the United Nations’ paralysed role in addressing and resolving global crises. Once, in the aftermath of the Second World War, hope was born with the rise of the United Nations from the ashes of conflict, carrying the noble ambition to shield humanity from further devastation, to provide a platform for lasting peace, and to safeguard human dignity in every corner of the world.
And, decades later, that ambition continues to inspire hope, but the reality of today tells a different story. Despite its long record of involvement in conflicts, aid, and diplomacy, the UN is trapped by its own structures and political divisions. At the heart of this paralysis lies the veto power of the Security Council, which has turned into a weapon for the powerful rather than a safeguard for humanity.
This privilege was meant to secure balance among major powers, ensuring none felt threatened by collective decisions that might undermine their core interests. Yet in practice it has become a tool of obstruction. A single veto can block global consensus even in the face of mass suffering. Wars in the Middle East driven by Israel’s relentless pounding to making Gaza flat to do genocide, the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, and recurring conflicts across Africa have exposed how helpless the United Nations becomes whenever the national interests of the permanent five are at stake. As a result, the institution meant to represent all nations often appears to be the captive of a few.
The contradictions are glaring as the great powers speak of democracy and human rights in lofty tones, yet when their interests or those of their allies are at risk, their vetoes silence the very values they claim to uphold. This erosion of trust has bred cynicism. For many around the globe, the UN no longer looks like a guardian of peace but rather a stage for power politics. Such disillusionment is dangerous because if the world ceases to believe in collective solutions, it risks sliding back into unilateralism and chaos.
The recent failures in Gaza and Ukraine are painful reminders of these limitations. In Gaza, where civilians are trapped under bombings and blockades, the Security Council has been unable to act decisively. Resolutions calling for ceasefires or humanitarian access have been diluted or blocked outright, leaving millions without relief. The world watches as the UN debates while suffering continues unchecked. In Ukraine, the problem is even clearer. With Russia itself holding a permanent seat and veto power, the Council was paralysed from the very start of the invasion. The General Assembly issued symbolic condemnations, but these carried little weight and offered no protection to those under attack. Cities were destroyed, families torn apart, and the credibility of the UN diminished further with every day of inaction.
These crises echo beyond their borders. For the Rohingya refugees crammed into camps in Bangladesh, the inability of the UN to bring justice or guarantee safe return to their homeland reflects the same pattern of paralysis. Promises of international solidarity remain unfulfilled, accountability measures stall, and hopes for a dignified solution fade. The fear is real that what the world has seen in Gaza and Ukraine will be repeated with the Rohingya and countless others whose suffering does not align with the political will of the powerful.
What we see now that the UN Secretary General António Guterres has tried to confront these challenges through reform. Since taking office in 2017, he has pushed for changes in development, management, and peace and security to make the UN more effective and accountable. His vision was to align UN agencies with the Sustainable Development Goals, cut through duplication, and improve transparency.
Decentralising authority was meant to empower field offices to act with speed and flexibility rather than being suffocated by bureaucracy. In the sphere of peace and security, reforms aimed to shift the focus toward prevention and mediation while strengthening ties with regional organisations. Guterres insists that these structural changes must be accompanied by a cultural transformation where collaboration across the system becomes the norm. His call to keep pressing the pedal underscores the urgency of embedding reforms into practice before the UN loses further relevance.
Yet even as Guterres seeks change, political realities continue to weigh down the institution. Critics like the US President Donald Trump seize on its failures to paint the UN as incompetent or irrelevant. During his recent UN visit, when an escalator and teleprompter malfunctioned, Trump mocked the organisation and used the mishaps to reinforce his narrative of its ineffectiveness. In his speech, he accused the body of producing empty words rather than concrete results and even blamed it for aiding asylum seekers in ways that he claimed encouraged invasions. Such remarks, though exaggerated, resonate with public doubts about the UN’s ability to solve pressing crises.
But abandoning the UN is not the answer for sure. Despite its flaws, the world still needs the organisation as a forum for dialogue and a platform for cooperation. Without it, there is no space where all nations, big or small, can come together under one roof. The solution is not to dismiss the UN as a failed experiment but to reform it so that it lives up to its mandate.
Structural changes must be matched with political courage. The veto system, though difficult to reform, must be reconsidered to prevent it from strangling collective action. Notably, Finnish President Alexander Stubb on 24th September, Wednesday, renewed his appeal for expanding the number of permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, abolishing veto power, and suspending voting rights of states that breach the UN Charter. “Today, the UN is struggling to fulfill its central promise of delivering peace and stability,” Stubb declared in his General Assembly address. “Countries increasingly take the liberty to disregard international law, to use force to seize territories, and to suppress other nations.”
The alternative is grim that a world without an effective UN risk plunging into unrestrained rivalries, where the strong impose their will unchecked and the weak are left abandoned. History’s lessons warn against such a course. The task is not institutional suicide but breathing new life into the organisation through genuine reform.
Beyond question, the world needs a United Nations that can act decisively, that can protect civilians, that can uphold justice, and that can bring hope to those who now feel forgotten. Reform is not optional, it is the only way to restore trust in collective action and ensure the UN remains relevant in a century already scared by turmoil. Indeed, the people of the world do not demand perfection from the United Nations; what they ask for is sincerity, fairness, and action that reflect the principles on which the institution was founded. For all its shortcomings, the United Nations remains indispensable, and I must insist that what is needed is genuine reform, not hara-kiri.
The writer is a political analyst, poet, and a litterateur
