The era of protracted conflict and failure to achieve proper reconciliation between countries has raised a serious question regarding the role of one of the world's most important non-state actors: the UN.
When the distance between local conventional conflict and its worldwide effects is becoming smaller, along with the trend of a declining liberal international world order, what is the logical interpretation and need for the UN if it fails to serve the goals for which it was created?
If people have started thinking like that, will it be a repetition of the same fate as the League of Nations, which was created to prevent another world war? To some extent, it is difficult to counter their thoughts as well.
Every continent and part of the world, more or less, is in conflict and competition, whether in a normative way or directly.
For instance, the war in Europe appears unavoidable. Conflict in the Middle East is extending its effects beyond borders, pushing for political division among major powers and harming global stability.
In Africa, as always, countries are facing funding crises, including aid fungibility issues. With the advance of modern technologies, criminal groups in Latin America are getting out of control.
In Asia, regional competition has been witnessed more than ever before. And the compilation of all these failures and their impacts is making the world more vulnerable than ever, particularly since the Cold War.
Apart from this, the agreements that were made during the Cold War to reduce and control nuclear weapons have been seriously weakened.
On top of that, countries are developing and adopting modern warfare approaches, such as the use of small and heavy drones in war, which have also been noticed during the Iran-Israel war and heavily in the Russia-Ukraine war, let alone following previous agreements and the rules-based order.
From this vantage point, questions regarding the existence of the UN can be considered nothing but a common phenomenon, citing the mentioned arguments in the chapter on international politics.
Along with this existing criticism, it should be taken into consideration that, over the past 80 years, the UN has prevented another world war and stood as a pillar against it.
It has also created the Sustainable Development Goals. But given the problems mentioned, the UN needs to act more quickly and accurately to address them, and it is failing to do so now.
It is more like avoiding problems or running away from them when it is needed most. For instance, there is no perpetual solution to the Russia-Ukraine war; it has shown signs of being somewhat absent from the ongoing war among the U.S., Iran, and Israel. It is not even playing an impactful role in some regional conflict zones.
But again, the UN should not be expected to prevent every war or achieve reconciliation. Still, it should be expected to end and prevent conflicts as part of its core responsibilities.
And failing to uphold this responsibility has led not only to questions about its existence but also to mistrust of its processes and proceedings. This has already been noticed. The UN is facing a serious funding shortage, and one reason for this is mistrust.
Countries are not feeling confident enough in its capabilities these days, making them less willing to invest.
The Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges once wrote, "It is not love that unites us, but fear." As someone who studies International Relations, I would say that it might be fear that makes individual strong states often act alone in international politics when the higher authority seems to lose its control and ground.
Having no other way, it is in the state's interest that leads them to act alone or seek a different body that might offer shelter.
The UN should realise that the world still considers it a global governing body, and from there the concern is generated.
For peace and stability, if the UN takes a coercive approach, which is somewhat absent these days, countries will follow it. Because of this absence, it forgets its potential and authority. It is high time to realise its power for a better world.
When it comes to whether the UN will become irrelevant or obsolete in the coming days, it is tough to make any assumptions or reach a conclusion.
The reason is simple: so far, the UN has prevented another world war. The UN has established itself as a successful norm entrepreneur.
Any new organisation that might emerge in the future will not come close. Even if we see any organisation after the UN, it will serve the interests of a certain group of people, not everyone, particularly in the way the UN more or less does, even after being messy. The fact to take into consideration is that the UN might be messy, but others are messier.
Md Imran Hosen is a researcher. He can be found at mdimran-2020512459@ir.du.ac.bd
