EDITOR'S CORNER: Does the United Nations Still Matter?

This week marked UNGA (United Nations General Assembly) week. It's a time when world leaders gather at the UN headquarters in New York to debate and deliberate on pressing global issues. One of the major topics this year was the question of Palestinian statehood. Several countries, including France and the UK, have recently moved to formally recognize Palestine, joining more than 150 UN member states that already do so. At the same time, strong opposition remains, particularly from the United States and Israel.

Amid these debates, a larger question loomed: does the United Nations still matter in today’s turbulent political landscape?

In this blog post, I want to explore a simple but urgent question: Does the UN still matter? And if so, can it remain strong in a world where global systems seem increasingly fragile and outdated.

WHAT IS THE UNITED NATIONS? 

The United Nations was born in 1945 out of the wreckage of World War II, meant to replace the failed League of Nations and to keep another catastrophe from happening. From its headquarters in New York, it has grown from 51 founding members to 193. This is nearly every country in the world. Its charter speaks of peace, human rights, and development, setting broad goals that remain as urgent today as they were at the start.

Over the decades, the UN has become more than just a talking shop. Its peacekeepers have patrolled conflict zones, its agencies have delivered food and medicine in times of disaster, and its declarations have helped shape global norms on rights, the environment, and development. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the Sustainable Development Goals, the UN has at times pushed the world forward in ways that go beyond speeches.

And yet its limits are obvious. The veto power of the five permanent Security Council members often blocks action, freezing the institution in a post-1945 order that no longer matches today’s fractured world. Critics question its relevance, but without it, there would be no place where nearly every nation can at least come to the same table. Imperfect as it is, the UN remains the only global arena where cooperation is still possible.

WHAT IS VETO POWER AND WHO HAS IT? 

At the core of the UN Security Council is the veto, held by its five permanent members: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China. Any one of them can block a resolution, no matter how much support it has from the rest of the Council or the wider UN. When it was created in 1945, the veto was meant to keep the major powers engaged, ensuring that the UN would not collapse the way the League of Nations had.

But today the veto is seen less as a safeguard than as a weapon. It reflects a balance of power frozen at the end of World War II, not the world as it is now. Russia has used it to shield itself over Ukraine; the United States has done the same on issues involving Israel and Palestine. The result is often paralysis, with crises unfolding while the Council stands by.

Reform is a constant demand, whether by expanding the Security Council or curbing the veto itself. Yet change would require the consent of those very states that profit from the system. That makes the veto not just a symbol of power but also one of the UN’s hardest knots to untangle.

WHO IS THE CURRENT SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UN? 

The Secretary-General is the UN’s public face and chief administrator, tasked with guiding the organization’s work and stepping in as mediator during global crises. Since 2017, that role has been held by António Guterres, a former Portuguese prime minister and UN refugee chief, who brought long political and humanitarian experience to the job.

He has made conflict prevention, climate change, and reform central themes of his tenure. Inside the UN, he has pushed for gender parity; outside it, he has become one of the loudest international voices warning about the climate emergency. His efforts to streamline the bureaucracy have been part of a broader attempt to make the institution more effective.

Yet Guterres has never escaped the UN’s limits. Critics say his diplomatic caution puts relationships with powerful states above confronting abuses, while his reform drive has often underdelivered. On the biggest crises—from Syria to Ukraine—he has been constrained by the same Security Council vetoes that stall the institution itself. And in 2024, when Israel declared him persona non grata after he stopped short of condemning an Iranian missile strike, the uproar highlighted just how little authority the office truly carries when it collides with the interests of member states.

MY OPINION 

The UN is still a necessary institution. It gives smaller countries a platform to be heard, even in a system dominated by the veto powers. That balance of voices, however imperfect, remains essential. Beyond politics, the UN’s humanitarian aid and peacekeeping work save lives every day and bring stability to places where few others will act.

But the UN is only as strong as its members allow it to be. If major powers like the United States or Russia refuse to let it act, then its hands are tied. The UN is not a state. This means it cannot impose decisions on its own. It exists to provide a forum for nations to raise problems, negotiate, and search for solutions.

Created to safeguard peace after World War II, the UN now finds itself sidelined at a time when global conflict once again feels dangerously close. With the United States retreating from its traditional leadership role, the organization lacks the backing it needs to stand strong.

And then there is António Guterres. Many see him as a weak Secretary-General, but his position reflects the will of the member states who put him there. History shows that even stronger Secretaries-General could not withstand the weight of global politics. In the end, the UN is only ever as effective as its members want it to be.

CONCLUSION

In the end, the UN is flawed but still essential. Without it, there would be no forum where nearly every nation can gather to speak, argue, and search for common ground. Its shortcomings are obvious, yet its record of achievements cannot be dismissed.

The challenge is not to walk away from the UN but to make it stronger. That means pressing powerful states to act responsibly, pushing for reform, and recognizing that the UN is only as bold as its members allow it to be. If countries choose to give it real backing, it can still serve the purpose it was created for: to hold back chaos in a dangerous world.