Top News

The 80th United Nations General Assembly is about to begin in New York. Leaders from across the world will walk into the grand hall by the East River, taking their turn at the iconic green podium. They will speak of peace, justice, and shared humanity. The headlines will record the applause, the handshakes, the symbolism. Yet the enduring question remains: will there be any real outcome?

Having covered the General Assembly over the years, I have seen firsthand how the UN is at once indispensable and deeply limited. It is the world’s only truly global stage, a place where every nation, large or small, rich or poor, is given a voice. That inclusiveness remains one of the UN’s greatest strengths. Yet, as the conflicts of our age make clear, its ability to deliver peace has rarely felt so fragile.

The UN’s Humanitarian Heart

It would be wrong to dismiss the UN entirely. Its humanitarian work is unmatched. The World Food Programme feeds millions facing famine. UNICEF ensures that children in war zones are vaccinated and schooled. UNHCR shelters refugees who have fled bombs, floods, and persecution. From clean water initiatives to human rights monitoring, UN agencies remain lifelines where states have failed.

This is the UN at its most relevant: not in ending wars, but in alleviating suffering and preserving human dignity.

The Security Council Trap

The story changes when the conversation shifts from aid to peacemaking. The Security Council, designed to prevent conflict, has become an archetype of paralysis. Its five permanent members, armed with vetoes, block meaningful action when their interests are at stake. Russia vetoes resolutions on Ukraine. The United States shields Israel over Gaza. China protects its allies.

The result is deadlock. The bombs keep falling, and the Council issues statements that ring hollow. To ordinary people in Mariupol or Gaza, the UN is not preventing bloodshed. It is a bystander or at best a relief provider.

Why the UN Cannot Stop Today’s Wars

The wars dominating our headlines illustrate the limits of the UN’s reach.

• In Ukraine, one of the aggressors, Russia, is itself a permanent member of the Security Council. Expecting impartial action is an illusion.
• In Gaza and across the Middle East, the United States uses its veto to block even calls for accountability.

The same pattern emerges in Sudan, Myanmar, and beyond. Without enforcement power and without unity among great powers, the UN is left to watch and to warn, but not to intervene.

The Question of Relevance

So does the UN matter? The answer is yes, but not in the way its founders envisioned. It matters as the one forum where all nations can be heard. It matters as a platform for diplomacy, even if that dialogue rarely ends wars. And it matters most of all as the world’s largest humanitarian network, the custodian of global conscience.

But as a force to stop wars, impose peace, or restrain the powerful, its relevance is painfully thin. Unless the structure of the Security Council changes, particularly the veto system, the institution will continue to disappoint those who expect it to resolve today’s bloodiest conflicts.

The United Nations can no longer paper over its irrelevance with lofty speeches and humanitarian band-aids; it needs immediate, structural reforms if it is to matter in today’s world. First, the Security Council must be freed out of the grip of the five permanent members whose veto power has paralyzed responses to conflicts from Syria to Ukraine. Second, the institution must be made accountable for results, not rhetoric - global crises demand decisive action, not another round of “strongly worded” resolutions. Third, funding must be tied to transparency and measurable outcomes in peacekeeping, development, and human rights, so the UN stops being a bloated bureaucracy and starts being a credible actor. Without these urgent reforms, the UN risks cementing its role as a stage for grandstanding rather than a force for peace.

The United Nations is not obsolete, but its relevance today lies more in its symbolic, humanitarian, and normative functions than in shaping binding outcomes on trade or peace. Bilateral and regional deals increasingly drive hard bargaining, whether in commerce, climate, or conflict resolution. Without deep reforms to overcome paralysis in its core structures, the UN risks being reduced to a moral compass and relief provider, rather than the central forum for solving the world’s toughest problems.

The UN remains indispensable in feeding the hungry, sheltering the displaced, and keeping alive the hope of collective action. But in the realm of war and peace, the gap between its aspirations and its influence has rarely been so stark.

At eighty, the UN still gives the world a voice, but not the power to silence the guns.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views or stance of the organization. The organization assumes no responsibility for the content shared.