As diplomats from nearly 200 member states gather in New York this week for the United Nations general assembly, a pressing question arises: is the UN too broken to be fixed? The backdrop of a massive Israeli bombing campaign in southern Lebanon adds urgency to this discussion. UN officials are currently grappling with three seemingly insurmountable conflicts in the Middle East, Ukraine, and Sudan. While the UN remains an essential humanitarian organization overseeing relief efforts for refugees and victims of natural disasters, its principal security body appears powerless to intervene in some of the world’s most entrenched conflicts.
Supporters argue that the UN still serves as a crucial forum for conflict resolution and has prevented even worse outcomes. Recognizing the need for radical change, its leadership has dedicated a significant portion of its Pact of the Future initiative to reforming the security council – which holds key decisions regarding peace and security within the UN. The agreement’s language is touted as containing “the most progressive and concrete commitment to security council reform since the 1960s,” with plans to enhance effectiveness and representation by addressing Africa’s historical under-representation.
However, Secretary-General António Guterres acknowledged that mediation efforts would be futile if parties involved did not seek it out – such as Russia and Ukraine or Israel and Hamas. Guterres highlighted that Russia’s direct involvement in a conflict exposed not only issues of effectiveness but also legitimacy within the security council.
Despite these challenges, Guterres expressed determination: “We will not solve all problems… We have no power, we have no money… but we have a voice.” He emphasized recent efforts on artificial intelligence reflected in the Pact of Future as evidence of their convening capacity.
Behind closed doors at diplomatic conversations with The Guardian, expectations for major breakthroughs on these conflicts were downplayed due to deep divisions between influential nations like US-Russia tensions and China’s growing independent influence. This impasse effectively paralyzes decision-making within the security council.
Slovenia’s UN ambassador Samuel Žbogar condemned this “poisonous mood” on the council while blaming both Moscow and Washington for wielding veto power. Additionally, funding shortages further weaken an already vulnerable institution.
Richard Gowan from International Crisis Group described UN reform as caught in a “vicious circle,” where states whose influence would be threatened resist necessary changes while internal hurdles hinder agreement ratification.
The sentiment among diplomats is increasingly pessimistic about getting governments’ attention towards UN initiatives. Many governments perceive diminishing relevance in this institution – if enough governments share this view, it becomes self-fulfilling prophecy
