THE answer to the question whether the UN is irrelevant today is yes and no. Yes, because if the Middle East crisis triggered by the US-Israeli attack on Iran is a test of relevance, then the UN has failed that. And no, because beyond its responsibility for international peace and security, the UN continues to play a vital role, for example, in the humanitarian sphere, where its lifesaving assistance for Palestinians in Gaza has been critical despite Israeli obstruction. Over the decades, it has played an important role in promoting economic and social development, acting as first-responder in humanitarian crises, helping refugees, protecting child rights and setting global norms on issues ranging from human rights to climate change. Most of the UN’s specialised agencies do a stellar job in multiple areas. The UN remains indispensable in several of its functional activities.
But it is in the area of peace and security that the UN needs to be effective. That is where its value and legitimacy are judged by people and governments across the world. And this is where it has fallen short. The principal responsibility for maintenance of international peace and security rests with the Security Council. It is expected to prevent conflicts, end wars and preserve global peace. But its ability to perform this core task depends on the Council’s five veto-wielding permanent members. When the P5 are divided or their interests clash, the Security Council is paralysed and unable to act. Proponents of realpolitik argue that regardless of the UN Charter, the Council’s structure, with its unequal power distribution, was devised to prevent only wars that didn’t involve P5 interests, but to stand aside when their interests so demand. This, of course, has dire consequences.
The consequences of deadlock in the Council were in plain sight during Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza, when resolutions for a ceasefire were repeatedly vetoed by the US. President Donald Trump also went on to establish a Board of Peace (ostensibly for Gaza and other conflicts) that he cast as an alternative to the UNSC. Trump rejected multilateralism, framing it as a surrender of sovereignty. But his disdain for the UN and depiction of it as “useless”, “outdated” and “ineffective” overlooks a fundamental reality. The UN and the Security Council can be as weak or powerful as its member states want it to be.
If any permanent member flouts the UN Charter and violates the sovereignty of other states — whether the US in attacking Iran or Russia by invading Ukraine — there is little the world body can do to stop them. Russia used the veto several times on resolutions on Ukraine calling for action against its 2022 invasion. Even when adopted, Council resolutions have been rendered unenforceable by actions of a P5 country.
The world body has failed in its core task but needs to be strengthened to address global challenges.
The retreat of multilateralism in recent decades has resulted in the UN’s marginalisation. Its role has diminished in a fractured world of growing geopolitical rivalries and deepening divides. A rules-based order has ironically been eroded by those who framed those rules themselves. The increasing use of hard power and resort to force by powerful countries to bend other states to their will has become a dominant global trend. Such actions have defied international law, further fragmenting a fraying global order and undermining systems of international cooperation and global governance, including the UN. The UN’s standing has also been diminished in recent years by the cavalier attitude of the US, which has abandoned key UN bodies during Trump’s administration.
The UNSC’s ineffectiveness has been laid bare during the US/Israel-Iran conflict. The body played virtually no role in trying to end the war or secure a ceasefire. No resolution was adopted by the Council to condemn the illegal US-Israeli attack on Iran. A Russian draft resolution calling for de-escalation did not receive enough support to pass. A resolution was adopted that condemned Iran’s retaliatory attacks on Gulf states. But it did not address the conflict’s root cause or mention who started the war. This only underlined what has often tarnished the Council’s credibility — its selective application of principles. Power has frequently trumped principles, making the UN a bystander in issues of war and peace and other crises.
As the battle over the Strait of Hormuz raged, the Council stood on the sidelines. Belatedly, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Washington wanted the UN to stop Iranian activities in the strategic waterway, questioning its “utility” if it didn’t do so. This was rich coming from a country that has done more to undermine the UN (by cuts in funding too) than any other nation in recent years.
The argument that the 80-year-old organisation needs reform to be ‘relevant’ and in sync with contemporary realities is compelling. Its institutional architecture, especially the Security Council’s structure, is an anachronism. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres has frequently stated, trust in global institutions is at a breaking point with ailing multilateral institutions in need of urgent reform. Former SG Ban Ki-moon has warned the UN is “slipping into dysfunction”.
While there is widespread support for reform among the international community there is no consensus on how to make the Security Council more representative, effective and accountable to the general membership. Reform efforts over the past two decades have stalled principally over disagreement between countries that aspire for permanent seats for themselves and others who oppose more permanent members, seen as responsible for Council dysfunction, and instead, propose adding more elected, non-permanent members to the Council. Moreover, the P5, whose consent is essential for reform, are not about to relinquish their veto power or dilute their control of the Council. That makes reform a remote possibility.
With the next secretary general about to be chosen soon, there will be even greater responsibility for him/her to make the UN fit for purpose. The plethora of global challenges from conflicts and humanitarian crises to climate change need the UN to be strengthened. For all its flaws, the Security Council’s legitimising role remains important. That is why countries go to the Council to secure its approval and thus international legitimacy for an action or goal. That is also why Iran wants it to endorse a peace agreement once it is reached with the US.
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.
Published in Dawn, May 11th, 2026
