Is the UN irrelevant?

THE answer to the question whether the UN is irrelevant today is yes and no. Yes, because if the Middle East crisis triggered by the US-Israeli attack on Iran is a test of relevance, then the UN has failed that. And no, because beyond its responsibility for international peace and security, the UN continues to play a vital role, for example, in the humanitarian sphere, where its lifesaving assistance for Palestinians in Gaza has been critical despite Israeli obstruction. Over the decades, it has played an important role in promoting economic and social development, acting as first-responder in humanitarian crises, helping refugees, protecting child rights and setting global norms on issues ranging from human rights to climate change. Most of the UN’s specialised agencies do a stellar job in multiple areas. The UN remains indispensable in several of its functional activities. But it is in the area of peace and security that the UN needs to be effective. That is where its value and legitimacy are judged by people and governments across the world. And this is where it has fallen short. The principal responsibility for maintenance of international peace and security rests with the Security Council. It is expected to prevent conflicts, end wars and preserve global peace. But its ability to perform this core task depends on the Council’s five veto-wielding permanent members. When the P5 are divided or their interests clash, the Security Council is paralysed and unable to act. Proponents of realpolitik argue that regardless of the UN Charter, the Council’s structure, with its unequal power distribution, was devised to prevent only wars that didn’t involve P5 interests, but to stand aside when their interests so demand. This, of course, has dire consequences. The consequences of deadlock in the Council were in plain sight during Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza, when resolutions for a ceasefire were repeatedly vetoed by the US. President Donald Trump also went on to establish