While the United Nations was initially founded with noble intentions in the aftermath of World War II, it has largely failed to fulfill its mission due to structural flaws, political paralysis, and lack of political will, and almost no accountability.
Origins of the United Nations:
Despite its noble ideals, the United Nations has become a symbol of bureaucratic stagnation and political impotence, repeatedly failing to uphold its foundational goals of peace and justice.
Some might say it’s a post-war necessity; others may call it a mild formality. In geopolitics particularly, it’s a rather modern invention, with history often being governed by ‘might make right’.
Delving into the UN’s history, we must go back to when Nazi Flags loomed over continental Europe. Allied leaders, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, signed the Atlantic Charter in August 1941. A founding charter that would sow the seeds of their vision for a post-war world.
The ideological and general underpinnings of the organization would slowly be etched and stitched with subsequent wartime conferences with other Allied Nations, including those at Moscow and Tehran in 1943 and Dumbarton Oaks in 1944.
Between April 25 to June 26, 1945, the Big 4 (United States, United Kingdom, Russia, and China) led the San Fransisco Conference aiming to finalize the UN Charter.
The main organs of the UN are the General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council, Trusteeship Council, International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat. The Security Council includes five permanent members with veto power, while the General Assembly features a universal membership of 193 states.
Ineffectiveness and Early Failures:
It’s easy to point out and highlight the ineffectiveness of this organization; it’s almost absurd the methods they employ to fix the problems the global community faces. However, this is largely to do with their structure. They are not a military force nor an independent body able to unilaterally pass judgment on matters. Its strength lies primarily in its member states’ eagerness to support a cause and the unanimity of the Security Council.
This structure would lead to many catastrophic failures that continue to mar the reputation of the organization. This can be seen even in the early days after its formation – especially during the Cold War. For instance, over the past following decades, the US has used the veto power 82 times – just to protect its own and Israel’s interests. Clearly, the veto power is a bureaucratic bottleneck, an issue that persists until today.
The second major issue that derails real change is the lack of political will/motivation. If member states don’t care about an issue or major powers aren’t particularly concerned with it; the UN is essentially crippled at implementing any protection or intervention in those cases.
In 1994, due to ethnic clashes between the Tutsis and Hutus, the Rwandan genocide took place. This horrific event led to the deaths of 800,000 people. Yet while these horrors were unfolding, the UN was bogged down by working on defining whether a genocide was even taking place. Moreover, since there was a lack of interest from Washington, no interventions to curb the violence or protect civilians materialized. Interestingly, the UN decided to reduce the size of their peacekeepers in the region.
This was particularly harrowing since Boutros Boutros-Ghali (the UN secretary-general) affirmed that a mere 400 soldiers could have “saved the situation”. The perpetrators were so lightly armed and ineffectively trained that even 400 troops were enough to save hundreds of thousands of lives.
Additionally, there is a problem of smoke and mirrors, and outright false promises. In the spring of 1993, the UN Security Council declared the Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina a “safe area” under its protection. However, the reality was considerably more underwhelming. A severely under-resourced and sparsely armed Dutch contingent of the UN Protection Force was the only line of defense. In July 1995, Bosnian Serb forces under the command of General Ratko Mladić launched a major offensive on Srebrenica. The lightly armed Dutch peacekeepers fought valiantly but, they had no chance of repelling the attack.
Following the capture of Srebrenica, Bosnian Serb forces systematically rounded up and massacred approximately 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys. An act of genocide that happened despite the UN’s explicit ‘guarantee of safety’.
The United Nations in the 21st Century:
We’d like to believe we live in a world more evolved than the simple notion of strength overbearing all morality. Yet it seems this notion still reigns true. For years now, the United States has been controlling countries and their actions in this unipolar world, and the UN has not been able to do anything against such a superpower.
At the cusp of the American invasion of Iraq, the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan explicitly stated in 2004 that the war was not in conformity with the UN Charter and that this invasion was completely illegal. Yet, the Security Council was unable to take action against the most powerful nation on Earth.
Coming back to powers abusing their veto, since the Palestinian Genocide started, the United States has consistently abused its veto in the UN Security Council to block any resolutions critical of Israel. By November 2024, the US had vetoed at least 49 UN Security Council resolutions critical of Israel.
This also includes the repeated vetoing of resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. This immutable backing by the United States provides “diplomatic cover” for Israel’s genocide that, since 2023 has claimed the lives of 51,000 people, including at least 17,400 children – and injured at least 116,343 people.
Structural Problems and Abuse of Power:
Beyond these specific events, a lack of strong accountability and oversight has led to systemic issues as well. A deeply disturbing one has been allegations of peacekeepers using their position in vulnerable societies to abuse and exploit women and young children.
Numerous credible reports and investigations have documented instances of these abuses.
The United Nations, like any massive organization, has had its share of stumbles with corruption and poor management. Take the 1996 Oil-for-Food Programme in Iraq: it was supposed to get vital aid to a sanctioned country, but instead, billions of dollars were siphoned off through widespread misuse.
Another example is when in 2022, the UN’s Office for Project Services (UNOPS) hit a rough patch because of failed impact investments and presented huge financial losses.
Conclusion:
Considering the repeated failures of the UN, it does make one wonder what the purpose of the organization is. It is unable to intervene or protect people without significant political backing, it is unable to prevent genocides or major conflicts, and it is essentially a metaphor for the overly bureaucratic tendency of our modern society, prioritizing hollow gestures over real change. While the UN has achieved some successes and alleviated conditions in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Cambodia, the organization has failed more times than it has succeeded.
Though reforms may be difficult, key structural changes might help the UN improve its processes, efficiencies, and effectiveness. This could be through limits to vetoes for the Security Council, the inclusion of more major democratic powers in the council, or an ability to overturn vetoes if an overwhelming majority has been met. These changes and many more could be instrumental in making the UN an organization that isn’t laughed at for its incompetence but applauded for its commitment to global peace and prosperity. The question now is: Without meaningful reforms and major changes, can we continue to entrust global peace and justice to an organization so often paralyzed by its own structure?
Aleena Im – is an independent researcher and writer and is interested in international relations, current affairs
