The United Nations Organisation was established in 1945 with a primary goal—to maintain international peace and security, promote human rights, and facilitate cooperation among nations. The UN has been at the forefront of global diplomacy for decades, preventing conflicts and resolving crises. However, in the present-day context, the relevance and effectiveness of the UNO as a guardian of international peace has come under intense scrutiny. With numerous unresolved conflicts, geopolitical tensions, and a few nations' consistent use of veto power, the United Nations seems increasingly toothless in its efforts to foster global harmony. This urgent situation has led to the question: Has the UN lost its significance, and how can it regain its potency?
Over the years, the UN has been credited with numerous achievements, including humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping missions, and efforts in promoting sustainable development. These successes, however, have been overshadowed by several high-profile failures. Conflicts in Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, and Ukraine have exposed the UN's inability to act decisively. The persistent use of veto power by permanent members of the Security Council—China, Russia, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom—has rendered the organisation ineffective in critical global crises. For instance, the ongoing Syrian Civil War has seen the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions. Still, the UN has been largely powerless due to the repeated use of vetoes by Russia and China, preventing decisive action against the Assad regime. Similarly, the UN has struggled to mediate effectively in the Ukraine crisis due to the geopolitical stakes involved with Russia, one of its permanent members, actively engaged in the conflict. These situations have left many questioning the UN's very structure, particularly the relevance of the veto power.
The veto power was initially designed to ensure that the great powers of the post-World War II era could maintain a balance of interests, preventing the outbreak of another global war. However, over time, the veto has become a tool of political manipulation, used to block resolutions that challenge the geopolitical interests of the permanent members. This has created an imbalance where the national interests of a few powerful countries often sideline the concerns of the broader international community. In many ways, the veto system is a relic of the Cold War, reflecting the power dynamics of that era. Today’s world is vastly different, with the rise of emerging economies and regional powers demanding a more equitable say in global governance. As such, it is increasingly evident that the veto power must be revisited if the UN is to regain its relevance and credibility.
One of the most frequently suggested reforms is to expand the permanent membership of the Security Council. The current structure, established in 1945, no longer reflects the realities of the 21st century. Emerging powers like India, Brazil, and South Africa have consistently lobbied for a more significant role in global decision-making, reflecting their growing economic and political influence. Expanding the Council’s membership would introduce a broader range of perspectives, ensuring that global governance is more representative and less dominated by a select few. Including more permanent members would also dilute the concentrated power of the current five. By eliminating or significantly limiting the veto power, decisions could be made more democratically, with resolutions reflecting the international community's will rather than individual nations' interests. A more representative and democratic Security Council would be better positioned to address global challenges, from climate change to terrorism, without being hamstrung by political gridlock.
With its burgeoning economy, vast population, and growing geopolitical influence, India is well-positioned to play a significant role in a reformed UN structure. As the world’s largest democracy and one of the fastest-growing economies, India has consistently been a voice for the Global South, advocating for more significant equity in international governance. India’s contributions to UN peacekeeping missions have been substantial, with Indian forces participating in various missions around the globe. Additionally, India’s leadership in climate change initiatives, its contributions to global health efforts, and its active participation in multilateral forums such as the G20 underscore its commitment to international peace and stability. Given these credentials, India’s inclusion as a permanent member of the Security Council is not only justified but necessary for making the UN more representative of the current global order. In a reformed Security Council, India could provide a much-needed counterbalance to the existing permanent members, offering a voice for developing countries and championing the causes of peace, security, and sustainable development.
To argue for reform, it is crucial to acknowledge the failures of the UN, many of which have been well-documented. Beyond Syria and Ukraine, the UN’s inability to prevent the 1994 Rwandan Genocide remains a black mark on its legacy. The failure to intervene in time led to the deaths of nearly a million people in just a few months, with the world standing by in shock. Similarly, the Srebrenica Massacre in 1995, where Bosnian Serb forces killed over 8,000 Bosnian Muslims despite the presence of UN peacekeepers, is another glaring example of the UN’s failure to act effectively. These examples underscore the UN’s inability to fulfil its mandate as the guardian of international peace, often hamstrung by bureaucratic inefficiency, lack of resources, or political inaction. Moreover, the UN’s track record in addressing climate change, poverty, and inequality has also been questioned. While it has made significant contributions through initiatives like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), progress has been slow, and global challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic have only exacerbated existing inequalities.
Substantial reforms are necessary for the UN to regain its relevance. The first step would be revisiting the structure of the Security Council. By expanding permanent membership and reducing or eliminating the veto power, the UN could become more democratic and reflect today's global realities. The UN's bureaucracy must also be streamlined to ensure more efficient decision-making and resolution implementation. Furthermore, empowering the UN means ensuring it has the resources and support it needs to address global challenges. Member states must contribute their fair share financially and in terms of political commitment. With the backing of its members, the UN will continue to thrive to maintain international peace and security. The United Nations remains a vital institution for global governance, but its current structure and approach must be updated. To stay relevant in the 21st century, the UN must reform itself, particularly by addressing the flaws in the Security Council. Expanding permanent membership, limiting the veto power, and ensuring that emerging powers like India have a more significant role will make the UN more representative and effective. Can the organisation fulfil its original mandate as the guardian of international peace and security in a rapidly changing world?