The United Nations has long ceased to function as the global peacemaker it was intended to be. The ongoing Indian cruel acts in Kashmir, following Russia-Ukraine conflicts with the latest Israel’s aggression against Palestine having an extended out-reach to Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen reveal that the UN, while designed as a beacon of diplomacy and peace, is faltering in its ability to resolve international disputes. The mechanisms of organization once hailed as the gold standard for multilateralism. Now they are increasingly seen as outdated and ineffectual in addressing today’s complex geopolitical crises. Although, UN has been a beacon of hope and humanity for many and did a lot of humanitarian work and peace efforts yet, its structural fallouts and non-binding nature compliments with geo-political interests of states, makes its relevance to peace fading hastily.

The UN’s impotence becomes painfully evident every single time when a powerful intent to project its power over the weaker. With the increasing intensity of Israel’s gross human violence across the middle western region, Russian aggression in Ukraine and Indian atrocities in Kashmir, the UN has failed to secure peace and deliver justice in these regions. Established to mediate and prevent such conflicts, the UN’s role in resolving this decades-long struggle has been fainted at best. Resolutions condemning Israeli actions or calling for ceasefires are repeatedly blocked in the Security Council, where veto powers such as the United States often intervene to protect their interests. This paralysis in decision-making has significantly weakened the UN’s moral authority as an arbiter of peace.

The structure of the Security Council gives five nations permanent veto power, has proven to be one of the greatest obstacles to achieving peace in conflict zones. This design flaw, baked into the UN Charter, often prevents decisive action when any of the permanent members such as China, Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom and France, hold conflicting interests. In the case of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Russia’s use of its veto has neutralized attempts to hold it accountable for its aggression. As long as this system remains unchanged, the UN will continue to be held hostage by the geopolitical interests of its most powerful members.

The 79^th session of UNGA holds that the General Assembly is a symbolic forum with little impact. The world members gathered, discussed critical issue of Palestinian human rights violation at the hands of Israel but of no use. The General Assembly provides a platform for all member states to voice their concerns, its decisions are non-binding and carry little weight. Since the recent past, the assembly’s overwhelming condemnation of Russia’s actions in Ukraine or its calls for a two-state solution or even ceasefire in Israel-Palestine conflict have had virtually no effect on the ground. The lack of enforcement mechanisms and power-politics of UNSC members delegates the General Assembly a symbolic role rather than an active participant in conflict resolution. This limitation underlines the growing gap between the UN’s ideals and its practical capabilities.

One of the biggest challenges the UN faces today is its declining credibility among member states, particularly those involved in ongoing conflicts. The US backed Israel, the US itself and Russia have demonstrated blatant disregard for UN resolutions and international law, with little to no consequences. The inability to enforce its own mandates diminishes the organization’s legitimacy and its relevance. Countries now increasingly turn to regional alliances and individual diplomacy over UN mediation, indicating a growing mistrust in the institution’s ability to deliver peace. Moreover, emergence of non-state actors compounds the UN challenges as they either ignore or bypass its mechanisms. Non-state actors like militant groups, terrorist organizations and even large multinational corporations often operate outside the framework of international law which further complicates the UN’s ability to manage global crises. In the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict; groups like Hamas and MNCs like McDonald’s are not bound by UN conventions, limiting the UN’s scope for negotiation. Similarly, in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, private military companies like the Wagner Group add layers of complexity that the UN is ill-equipped to handle.

The UN’s performance in delivering humanitarian aid to conflict zones has been far from adequate. The humanitarian corridors proposed for Ukraine were sporadic and insufficient, leaving millions to suffer amid the conflict. In Gaza, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency is stretched thin as it deals with a humanitarian crisis that worsens with each round of Israel’s belligerent attacks. These failures cast doubt on the UN’s ability to protect the most vulnerable populations in conflict zones, further eroding its standing as a force for good.

Among others, one of the primary challenges to UN’s diminishing role is the global shift towards unilateralism and regionalism. Countries like the United States, Russia, and China increasingly prefer to act independently or through exclusive regional alliances like NATO or the SCO. This erosion of multilateralism undermines the UN’s foundational principle of collective security. As powerful nations prioritize their national interests over global cooperation, the UN is left struggling to maintain relevance in the international order.

In a world where multilateralism is under siege and unilateralism is on the rise, the UN’s role as a global peacemaker is in serious jeopardy. For the UN to reclaim its role as a global peacemaker, it must undergo significant reforms. A starting point would be the restructuring of the Security Council, particularly addressing the disproportionate influence of veto-wielding members. Expanding the council to include additional states from each region that voices concerns of that region as a whole. Additionally, empowering the General Assembly by giving it more enforcement capabilities would provide a counterbalance to the Security Council’s often-gridlocked decisions. However, the UN remains a symbol of hope for many, but that hope is fading fast as it fails to adapt to the complexities of modern conflicts. Without substantial reforms and a renewed commitment from its most powerful members, the UN risks becoming an institution that is more about rhetoric than action. In the face of the Israel-Palestine and Russia-Ukraine conflicts, the question is not whether the UN can restore peace, it is whether the UN will even be relevant in the peace processes of the future.