The United Nations was not born merely as a diplomatic club, but as an ambitious promise to humanity. Its founding mission, articulated in the Charter’s preamble, was “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights… in the equal rights of… nations large and small.” It was conceived as an international body that would act in the “common interest” and serve as a “centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.” Today, the UN has become a tragic contradiction of these founding principles, a tool of the powerful that has fundamentally failed the world.
While the UN Security Council is paralyzed by the US veto, other UN bodies, like the UN Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, have repeatedly issued reports and resolutions that, on paper, should compel action. On September 16, 2025, a UN-appointed independent commission of inquiry found that Israel had committed acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, urging all states to fulfill their legal obligations under international law to end it. Yet, this finding—a legal term with immense gravity—was met with little more than a collective shrug from the global community.
The Gaza catastrophe: The numbers of a genocide
The UN’s failure is most acutely visible in the catastrophic human cost of the Gaza crisis. The numbers are staggering and relentless, telling a story of unprecedented death and destruction. As of September 17, 2025, the Gaza Ministry of Health has reported 65,062 fatalities and 165,697 injuries since the conflict began in October 2023. These figures include a disproportionate number of women and children. The scale of the humanitarian disaster is further underscored by the fact that over 540 aid workers have been killed, including 373 UN staff and team members, the highest number of aid worker deaths in any single conflict in the UN’s history.
The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in its report on September 16, 2025, went beyond a simple critique of the UN’s inaction. It concluded that Israel’s actions constituted “genocide,” having committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention. The report’s findings are a direct rebuke to the international community’s failure to prevent what it has now legally defined as a crime of immense gravity.
In addition to the direct casualties, the humanitarian crisis has spiraled into famine. According to the UN, nearly all of Gaza’s 2.1 million residents have been displaced, with many forced to move multiple times in search of safety. Famine has been confirmed in Gaza City, and the number of malnutrition-related deaths has reached 432, including 146 children, highlighting the profound suffering caused by the blockade and the denial of aid.
THE POWER AND PERIL OF THE US VETO
The question of what purpose the UN serves if a single nation can veto the will of the world is at the very heart of the organization’s current crisis. The power of the United States in the UN is not merely one of influence or funding; it is a legal and structural authority enshrined in its status as a permanent member of the Security Council. This position grants the US the unique ability to unilaterally block any substantive resolution, regardless of how many other nations support it.
This power has effectively rendered the UN’s core mission to maintain international peace and security a conditional mandate. The UN can only act decisively when a crisis aligns with the interests of the US (and the other P5 members). In cases where a Security Council resolution might constrain the actions of the US or its allies, the veto transforms the UN from an instrument of collective security into an impotent debating society. The organization’s utility in these scenarios is reduced to providing humanitarian aid, a vital but insufficient role that operates in the shadow of its failure to prevent the very crises it is trying to alleviate.
The hijacking of the UN: A tool of the West against the rest
The crisis in Gaza is a symptom of a larger, systemic problem: the UN’s transformation from a neutral arbiter into a tool for the powerful, often serving the interests of Western states against the Global South. The veto power, held exclusively by the five victors of World War II, has created a two-tiered system that fundamentally contradicts the principle of “sovereign equality.”
This is not a new phenomenon. Scholars and analysts have long criticized UN interventions, particularly peacekeeping operations, as reinforcing neo-imperial hierarchies. The Security Council has been accused of selectively applying international law, intervening forcefully in conflicts where Western interests are at stake while remaining paralyzed in others. For example, the UN’s failure to act during the Rwandan genocide and the protracted Syrian civil war are often cited as prime examples of this paralysis, where the P5’s internal rivalries trumped the body’s mandate to protect human lives.
As UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese stated in an interview with Anadolu Agency, “The inability to maintain peace and security and save lives in Gaza is an ‘epical failure’ of the United Nations.” She pointedly noted that the US, which is a major military aid provider to Israel, is the same country blocking a ceasefire resolution, demonstrating a profound conflict of interest that paralyzes the organization.
A pattern of catastrophic failure
The UN’s inability to act is not an abstract concept; it is a pattern of catastrophic failure with a devastating human cost. The organization’s inability to stop aggression and protect civilians is well-documented in some of the worst conflicts of the modern era.
For instance, in the Syrian Civil War, despite a staggering death toll of over 580,000 people and the displacement of 13 million Syrians, the UN Security Council was consistently paralyzed. Since 2011, Russia and China have collectively used their veto power more than 20 times on resolutions related to the conflict, demonstrating a direct link between the veto and the UN’s inability to intervene.
Further, during the Srebrenica Massacre In 1995, the UN’s “safe area” in Srebrenica became a cruel paradox. Despite a presence of UN peacekeepers, they were ordered not to intervene, allowing Bosnian Serb forces to overrun the enclave and systematically massacre over 8,000 Muslim men and boys. A Human Rights Watch report on the event called it a “mockery of the international community’s professed commitment.”
The UN’s failure to prevent the 1994 Rwandan genocide, which claimed the lives of approximately 800,000 people in 100 days, remains a profound stain on its history. The UN mission on the ground, UNAMIR, had its forces reduced just as the massacres began, and a Security Council resolution to strengthen the mission was never adopted due to a lack of political will from key members.
These are not isolated incidents but rather critical case studies that illustrate how the UN’s structure, particularly the veto, has rendered it incapable of protecting the weak when the interests of the powerful are at stake.
Critical scholarly perspectives
This pattern of failure has drawn sharp criticism from prominent scholars and former UN officials who argue that the organization’s current form is obsolete. In her Pulitzer Prize-winning book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, Samantha Power argues that U.S. officials knowingly and deliberately chose not to intervene in genocides, proving that the UN system is not one of failure but of a “successful” policy of non-intervention. Similarly, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, a former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, has repeatedly and critically warned that the veto power gives undue deference to the political interests of the P5, leading to inaction in the face of mass atrocities.
The UN’s own defense: A question of history, not semantics
In a powerful exchange with Al Jazeera journalist James Bays, UN Secretary-General António Guterres offered a defense of the organization’s actions, framing its role in the context of history. He said:
“History will remember the fact that we were in the first line to fight for the defense of the interests of the Palestinian people. History will remember the 400 UN members that were killed in Gaza. History will remember all the efforts that we have made to denounce the constant violations of international law and the worst level of death and destruction that has no parallel in my time in office. History will remember that we have been in a leadership position in defense of the rights of the Palestinian people, in the promotion of a Palestinian state. That is what history will remember, not a question of semantics.”
Guterres’s statement captures the deep frustration within the organization, contrasting the UN’s moral and humanitarian efforts with its political paralysis. It suggests that while the UN may be unable to enforce its will, its role as a witness, an advocate, and a provider of aid is what defines its legacy in a world where hard power often trumps international law.
The unspoken arguments for reform
The critique of the veto goes beyond its use in the context of a single conflict. It shines a light on the UN’s antiquated structure, a relic of the post-World War II era that no longer reflects the global power balance. The veto power effectively gives five nations the right to act above international law, a concept that fundamentally contradicts the UN Charter’s principle of the sovereign equality of all member states.
Beyond its physical use, the mere threat of a veto—known as the “hidden veto”—also has a “chilling effect” that stifles diplomatic efforts. According to a report on the UN Security Council Working Methods, this “hidden veto” can prevent a draft resolution from even being formally tabled. It ensures that difficult topics are simply swept under the rug, preventing any public debate or action.
In conclusion, the UN’s failure to act on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is a tragedy not just for the Palestinian people, but for the entire international system. The US’s repeated use of the veto has not only directly contributed to the suffering but has also laid bare the profound weakness of an organization that was built to prevent such horrors. The UN, once a symbol of global cooperation and peace, now stands as a monument to its own impotence, its credibility shattered and its future as a relevant global actor in grave doubt.
Mohammedawel Hagos is a doctoral candidate at Mekelle University and a lecturer at Worabe University.
Contributed by Mohammedawel Hagos
