The United Nations (UN), created in 1945, had the goal of actively maintaining peace within the international community. In the wake of World War II, the world was ready for calm, and there was widespread motivation to create peace as a joint community. However, the world of international politics today is even more complex, thus calling into question the relevance of the United Nations as a governing international body. There are many arguments that highlight the shortcomings of the United Nations, deeming it irrelevant.
The UN too often feels like a relic: slow, fractured, hamstrung by the politics of its most powerful members. It is easy to dismiss the United Nations. The UN is an indispensable organisation because it is the only global forum where all countries can come together to discuss and address common challenges. It is also the only organisation with the mandate and resources to coordinate international action on a wide range of issues, including peace and security, human rights, development, and environmental protection. However, since the UN is a long-standing institution that has facilitated beneficial actions, it is essential to implement structural revisions to adapt this institution to the modern day. United Nations Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjold, once said, “The UN was not created to lead mankind to heaven but to save humanity from hell”. Hammarskjold’s line was not drenched in defeatism; it was realism rather.
But 80 years on, the question returns as to whether the UN really saved humanity from hell. Undercut by financial shortfalls, United States retrenchment, and growing geopolitical divides, can the UN remain a vital stage for global diplomacy or will competing powers shape a world order that sidelines it? The question is not whether the UN has failed, but whether humanity can afford a world without it. The United Nations is widely viewed to be politically relevant and an important platform for shaping international discourse and influencing public opinion. Great-power hypocrisy is not new, but for many at the United Nations, it has reached new heights and eroded the institution’s relevance in its most central role, which is to ascribe or deny legitimacy to the use of force in international relations. The war in Ukraine has exposed, once again, the UN’s limitations. Article 2(4) of the Charter explicitly forbids the use of force by one state against another, yet Russian tanks have been rolling across Ukraine since 2022.
80 years on, the question returns as to whether the UN really saved humanity from hell.
And whenever the Security Council seeks even a symbolic resolution calling for a ceasefire, Russia’s vetoes block any action against itself. Similarly, Israeli bombardment in Gaza has reduced the Strip to rubble, killed the UN’s own humanitarian staff, and killed thousands of children, a devastation widely condemned as genocidal. Yet every resolution demanding a ceasefire meets the United States’ veto. After Gaza, the UN, to many, looks less like a guardian of peace and more like a bystander issuing press statements while the world burns. No wonder cynics repeatedly question the organisation’s relevance, credibility and effectiveness. Yes, the UN fails spectacularly on some occasions, but so do domestic institutions. Think of a high-profile case at home where a powerful politician is accused of wrongdoing. The police hesitate, prosecutors delay, the court stalls. The system looks broken, yet no one declares the entire judiciary defunct or useless, because it continues to function, day after day, in thousands of other cases that draw no headlines. The UN, too, does its work silently in a thousand places where there are no vetoes and, more importantly, no cameras. Critics often forget that the UN is more than the sum of vetoes in the Security Council. While the vetoes do their best to hamstring the UN, its other organs and specialised agencies have been quietly reshaping the lives of ordinary people. For example, UNICEF has immunised billions of children and expanded girls’ education. UNHCR shelters millions displaced by conflict. UNESCO helps conserve and safeguard cultural heritages. The ICJ has articulated limits on the use of force and even prevented wars by settling hot frontier disputes. These institutions have done far more than Hammarskjold’s modest aim of “saving humanity from hell”, as they have helped millions live with dignity. They remind us that the UN’s failures are political and not humanitarian.
Even if we were to abolish the UN tomorrow, human conflict would force us to invent another organisation much like it, and it, too, would suffer the same shortcomings because its members would still misuse power for petty interests. The question, therefore, is not whether the UN has failed, but whether humanity can afford a world without it. For all its shortcomings, it remains the only universal forum where a small country can speak with the same dignity as a superpower. It remains the custodian of the idea that law, not force, should govern relations among nations. And it remains the one place where even those who defy it must still explain themselves. The UN was never built to take mankind to heaven. But so long as it keeps us from descending into hell, it is not just relevant, it is indispensable, however imperfect and serves as a reminder that civilisation itself is a work forever in progress. The UN is not the saviour of the world, nor was it designed to be. Like it or not, it is the only global institution with the expertise and structure to facilitate dialogue, coordinate humanitarian response, and uphold international norms. Without a doubt, the UN suffers from geopolitical tensions, and numerous member states with competing interests challenge the international order.
It is telling that the President of the General Assembly, Dennis Francis, chose the theme of the seventy-eighth session to be “Rebuilding trust and reigniting global solidarity. “When people ask whether the UN is relevant today, they usually have in mind the UN Security Council. It is definitely one of the most dysfunctional parts of the UN, largely due to the widening ideological gulf between the five veto-wielding permanent members (P5), usually pitting Russia and China on one side and the United States, UK, and France on the other. Time and again, the Security Council has failed to take any action on Ukraine, Israel, Sudan, and countless other crises because one or more P5 members block things. But let’s not forget the UN aid programs aimed at feeding hungry people or vaccinating children.
Those who rely on UN aid to survive don’t think it’s irrelevant. That is not to say the UN is a model of efficiency. UN aid programs save lives but are often slow, bureaucratic, and occasionally marred by cowardice and/or mismanagement. In terms of human rights, the UN leadership is too often afraid to call out big powers. It is also imperative that the UN chief has the moral courage to call out all governments, regardless of their geopolitical clout, whenever they are in violation of human rights, including the rights of minorities and women. Following a policy of selective outrage over rights abuse undermines the UN’s authority even further. And yet humanity needs the UN. It is one of the things that, had it not been there, would need to be invented. So, the real question is how to ensure not only the legitimacy but also the effectiveness of this institution?
(To Be Continued)
The writer is an ex-banker and a columnist. She can be reached at tbjs.cancer.1954 @gmail.com