13th September, 2025
By: Amir Abdulazeez
The
United Nations is currently holding its 80th General Assembly sessions
in New York. Some days earlier, the U.S. State Department, under the pretext of
national security and anti-terrorism laws, revoked visas for dozens of
Palestinian officials, including President Mahmoud Abbas slated to participate,
at the General Assembly and a high-level two-state conference. This move drew
criticism from the UN itself, EU and some human-rights groups, with calls to
relocate Palestinian-related meetings outside New York. This echoes historical
precedents, notably the 1988 visa denial to Late Yasser Arafat, which forced
the UN to shift one of its sessions to Geneva to allow him participate.
Although
the 1947 ‘Headquarters Agreement’ obliges the United States to admit all UN
participants, Washington occasionally and selectively invoke security and legal
excuses to discriminate between entrants. Such practices explain how the UN’s
operations remain vulnerable to U.S. control, thereby undermining its
independence, authority and credibility. As the UN marks the 80th anniversary
of the ratification of its charter on 24th October 2025, the
organization which was founded on the ashes of World War II in 1945 faces an
existential crisis of credibility and effectiveness.
While
it has achieved notable successes in humanitarian aid, educational research and
global environmental and health initiatives, its core mission of maintaining
international peace and security has been repeatedly undermined by structural and
diplomatic flaws. The organization's inability to meaningfully respond to
crises from Syria to Ukraine and most visibly in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, has exposed fundamental weaknesses that warrant urgent reform. The
UN’s record is one of profound paradox: a body designed for action but often
defined by its inaction. Nowhere is this impotence more starkly illustrated
than in its 70 years’ failure to resolve the Palestinian question or to hold
Israel accountable for its international impunities.
From the
outset of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the United Nations assumed a
central role by proposing the 1947 Partition Plan, which sought to establish
separate independent states for both parties. Although initially conceived as a
potential path to peace, the plan was never enforced and the UN has since
struggled to translate its own decisions into reality. Further failures are
documented in a paper trail of unimplemented resolutions: Security Council
Resolution 242 (1967) called for Israel’s withdrawal from territories occupied
during the Six-Day War; Resolution 338 (1973) and countless subsequent
resolutions reaffirmed this demand that was not only ignored but instead empowered
Israel’s massive expansion of illegal settlements.
Beyond
the unimplemented resolutions, a critical UN failure in this regard is that of narrative
framing. It has been unable to consistently enforce a foundational principle:
that the right to self-determination for one people (Israelis) cannot be
predicated on the denial of that same right to another (Palestinians). The
organization's various bodies often treat the conflict as a symmetrical dispute
between two equal parties, rather than an asymmetrical struggle between a
nuclear-armed occupying power and a stateless, occupied population living under
a brutal blockade.
The
core of the UN’s ineffectiveness lies in the flawed decision-making structure
of its Security Council, where the five permanent members (United States,
Russia, China, France and United Kingdom) hold the autocratic privilege of veto
power. This system of outdated World War II geopolitics has frequently
paralyzed the organization in hours of need. Since 1946, the veto has been
selfishly exercised about 300 times. Between 2011 and 2023, Russia and China
blocked 16 resolutions on Syria, enabling the Assad regime’s brutal campaign
against civilians. The United States, meanwhile, has used its veto more than 50
times to shield Israel from accountability, making Palestine the single most
vetoed issue in UN history. Instead of serving as a platform for global
security, the Council has become an arena for shameless and hypocritical power
politics.
The
General Assembly, despite representing all 193 member states equally, has been
relegated to a largely ceremonial role in matters of international peace and
security. While the Assembly can pass resolutions by majority vote, these carry
no binding legal force and are routinely ignored by powerful nations. The 2012
resolution calling for an arms embargo on Syria passed with 133 votes but had
no practical effect, as Russia continued supplying weapons to the Assad
government. This has created a two-tiered system where the views of the
international majority are systematically subordinated to the interests of
Security Council Super Powers.
The selective enforcement of
international law has become a defining hallmark of UN impotence. While the
organization has at times demonstrated resolve such as coordinating global
sanctions against apartheid South Africa in the 1980s or authorizing military
intervention in Libya in 2011, its responses to other similar crises have been
inconsistent and politically driven. Similarly, the International Criminal
Court, often operating with UN support, swiftly indicted leaders of Liberia, Sudan
and Libya, yet no Western or allied leaders like George W. Bush or Tony Blair have
been held to account for baseless interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan or Yemen.
These double standards have eroded the UN’s credibility and moral authority,
particularly in the Global South, where it is increasingly viewed as an
instrument of Western hegemony.
The
UN's peacekeeping apparatus, while successful in some contexts, has also
demonstrated significant limitations when confronting determined state actors.
The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) on the Golan Heights
and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) have maintained buffer
zones during their operations, but have been powerless to prevent violations by
all parties. During the 2006 Lebanon War and subsequent conflicts, these forces
could only observe and report violations rather than enforce compliance.
Financial
manipulation has emerged as another tool of selective pressure within the UN
system. The United States, which contributes 22% of the UN's regular budget, has
repeatedly withheld or threatened to withhold funding to pressure the
organization on specific issues. In 2018, the Trump administration cut $285
million from UN peacekeeping operations and reduced contributions to various UN
agencies. The UN's human rights mechanisms face similar challenges of selective
application and political manipulation. The Human Rights Council, reformed in
2006 to address criticisms of its predecessor, continues to be influenced by
bloc voting and political considerations rather than objective human rights
assessments. Countries with questionable human rights records have served on
the Council while using their positions to deflect criticism and protect
allies.
Critics
argue that the UN has become a stage for symbolic debates while real decisions
and tangible actions are outsourced to global bullies like the US, less formal
coalitions like the NATO and regional actors like the EU. For example, the
U.S.-brokered Abraham Accords normalized relations between Israel and several
Arab states without addressing core Palestinian concerns while side-lining the
UN. Similarly, its response to Russia's invasion of
Ukraine in 2022 was limited to humanitarian aid and symbolic condemnation, as bodies
like EU looked more relevant and assertive.
The
rise of new global powers and changing geopolitical realities have rendered the
UN's 1945 structure increasingly obsolete. Reform proposals have circulated for
decades but have consistently failed due to the resistance of existing power
holders. Things have changed since World War II, nations have evolved, others
have declined and hence the UN must be reformed to reflect current realities.
The permanency of the Security council membership must be reviewed and the
senseless veto authority must be abolished or modified along the lines of
justice and accountability. As the United Nations approaches its 80th
anniversary, the choice is clear: fundamental reform or continued irrelevance.
Maintaining the United Nations system costs about $50–55 billion per year, not counting military deployments and opportunity costs. Beyond money, states commit significant diplomatic, military, humanitarian and bureaucratic resources to maintain their participation. This makes the UN one of the most resource-intensive international organizations ever created. Without serious reforms to address structural inequalities, eliminate veto abuse and restore the primacy of international law over great power politics, the UN risks becoming a historical footnote rather than the cornerstone of the global governance its founders envisioned. The international community must decide whether it will tolerate continued dysfunction or demand the transformative changes necessary to address 21st century challenges.
No comments:
Post a Comment