80 Years of Inertia

When Indian External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar said in a blunt tone on October 16 at the ‘UN Peacekeeping Ministerial’ conclave in New Delhi that, “The United Nations still reflects the realities of 1945, not of 2025,” he was indirectly pointing towards the UNO’s failures over the past eight decades, its structural weaknesses, and the need for reform. On October 24, 2025, the United Nations (UN) will complete 80 years of its establishment. Founded in 1945 after the horrors of the Second World War with the aim of ‘saving future generations from the scourge of war’, this organisation is today grappling with a severe crisis of relevance and credibility. Amidst global crises like Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, and Haiti, the UNO’s inaction has earned it the epithet of a ‘paper tiger’.

The history of the UNO’s failures is quite long. The primary objective of the UN’s establishment was to establish world peace, but its history is a long list of failures. The Rwandan Genocide (1994) is its most tragic example, where nearly eight hundred thousand people were killed despite the presence of UN peacekeeping forces (UNAMIR). Then Secretary-General Kofi Annan considered this the organisation’s biggest failure. In the Srebrenica Massacre (1995), over 8,000 people were killed in a UN-declared safe area, which could not be prevented. In the Iraq War (2003), the US attacked without the Security Council’s approval, resulting in the deaths of millions of civilians. In the Syrian Civil War (2011 to present), vetoes by Russia and China prevented any concrete action, leading to over 5,00,000 deaths.

In Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (2022), Russia’s veto rendered the UN helpless. In the recent Gaza crisis, the US used its veto 53 times in favour of Israel, causing ceasefire proposals to fail. These incidents highlight the UN’s biggest weakness—the veto power of the five permanent members (P5: USA, Russia, China, UK, France) of the Security Council. In fact, since its inception, the UN has struggled to resolve many global disputes, which highlights its structural deficiencies. Consider some examples:

* Suez Canal Crisis (1956): The UN failed to provide a military solution; the crisis was resolved only under pressure from the US and the Soviet Union.

* Kashmir Dispute: Despite resolutions since 1948, the UN has never been able to resolve this dispute between India and Pakistan. India has reiterated its resolve to abrogate Article 370 and integrate PoK back into India.

* Iran-Israel Conflict: Due to the US veto, the UN could not stop Israel’s actions.

* Palestine-Israel Conflict: The two-state solution could not be implemented, and Israel blatantly ignored UN proposals and has virtually eliminated the Gaza Strip.

* Syrian Civil War: Differences between Russia and the US rendered the UN impotent.

Similarly, UN sanctions on North Korea’s nuclear program have been ineffective, the UN failed to hold a referendum in Western Sahara, and the Cyprus dispute has remained unresolved for decades.

Most importantly, the Ukraine-Russia conflict has been ongoing for the past three years, and thousands have been killed, but the UN remains helpless and powerless.

Considering all these global events, questions are now being raised about the UN’s relevance because powerful countries have been and continue to disregard its decisions. Israel ignored UN proposals to withdraw from the lands occupied after the 1967 war. The US misused its veto in favour of Israel, while Russia protected itself in the Ukraine crisis.

India’s position is particularly noteworthy. Despite being a non-permanent member eight times, India has not received permanent membership. Along with G4 countries (India, Brazil, Germany, Japan), India has been demanding reforms, but opposition from the P5 has stalled progress. In frustration, India is moving towards alternative platforms like BRICS and the Quad. Recently, India advocated for African representation, but discontent has grown due to the neglect of its own membership. In this context, on September 26, Secretary-General António Guterres emphasised the need for reforms in the Security Council, clearly stating that “the world of 1945 is long gone.” Reforms were also discussed at the 2024 ‘Summit of the Future’, but tensions among the P5 created obstacles.

It can be said that the UN has achieved some successes in humanitarian aid, refugee protection, and climate change, but its failures are overwhelming. The veto power, the dominance of the P5, and the neglect of emerging countries have made it biased. The rise of alternative forums like BRICS and G20 is challenging the UN’s relevance. Without reforms, the UN could become irrelevant like the League of Nations. Two crucial points for essential reforms are:

* Curbing Veto Power: Limiting the misuse of the veto by the five Security Council countries.

* Expanding Permanent Membership: Including India, Brazil, Germany, Japan, and African countries has now become inevitable. Their role in the changing global landscape cannot be underestimated.

Over the past 80 years, the UN has made some efforts for world peace, but its failures in cases like Rwanda, Srebrenica, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, and Gaza tarnish its credibility. If the UN does not adapt itself to the world of 2025, it will remain merely a talking shop. Reforms will determine its future—otherwise, becoming irrelevant will be its destiny.

Views expressed are personal. The writer is an independent journalist