The world of the third millennium is experiencing a difficult and arduous period in various regions, particularly along the Eurasian axis and the western part of the ancient continent. A prominent symbol of this is the tragic human catastrophe in Gaza. This is occurring despite the fact that advancements in science, technology, and artificial intelligence promised a better life accompanied by peace and coexistence. However, in the third millennium, international and regional developments have not only accelerated but have also been accompanied by escalating violence and criminality. Whereas in the twentieth century we might have witnessed a dangerous crisis once a decade, this trend in the twenty-first century has accelerated to the emergence of a new crisis annually, and even seasonally or monthly. This trajectory, evident since the collapse of communism, the Balkan wars, and the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and especially since September 11th, heralded a century of warlords for the 21st century. Amid this, the international system and the arena of prominent global politicians face a vacuum, lacking significant achievements in preventing crises and, most notably, in resolving bloody conflicts.
In this context, the largest international and human rights institutions are stagnating on critical global issues. They have either reached an impasse on important international matters or are merely issuing statements and resolutions with no enforcement mechanism. While the international stage is currently experiencing diverse and complex developments—from the genocide in Palestine to rifts in the Euro-Atlantic axis, the Ukraine crisis, and the 12-day imposed war against Iran—there is little talk of the United Nations playing a role as the foremost international body for establishing peace and stability. This state of affairs appears to have been accepted as a reality and a norm by both statesmen and global public opinion. Why has the United Nations strayed so far from its most vital mission and ideals, becoming preoccupied with secondary issues like managing refugee affairs and issuing a handful of statements?
More importantly, the charismatic role of world political leaders and the Secretary-General in recent years' crises has been limited to ineffectual commentary. This is despite the fact that the position of Secretary-General is the highest international office and the most critical managerial role at the UN, responsible for coordinating the organization's activities alongside presenting constructive initiatives to promote international peace and security and general growth and development. Nearly eight decades after the establishment of the United Nations, the most common assessment of the organization can be summarized as follows:
The UN is the most important, yet least precise and professionally recognized, international institution. It functions as the best tool for the great powers, especially the veto holders, while for other countries and nations, it serves as a center for verbal disputes rather than a forum for solving global problems. A key characteristic is that it perennially struggles to find solutions and has become a tool to justify inaction. On the other hand, the great powers resort to it for matters such as peacekeeping, technical consultation, election monitoring in other countries, support for victims of natural disasters, and political mediation.
The reality is that, on one hand, a warlord-like approach has been promoted globally over the past two decades, with arms manufacturers and merchants in this sector injecting it with potent oxygen. Consequently, there are no criteria or regulations for initiating war; any country can strive to achieve its hypothetical dreams based on its might and military capacity. On the other hand, alongside a global consensus on the need for a change in the international order, various countries believe that international forums, especially the UN, require fundamental changes and updated mechanisms to respond effectively and efficiently to new global conditions.
Many analysts condemn the veto power and believe that the formula for how this instrumental right is used requires a fundamental revision. This issue has led the Americans to resort to unilateralism and the instrumental use of military intervention to "prevent" war and insecurity. In recent years, the veto power has been contested by many countries. At a minimum, Japan, Germany, and India are insistently demanding this right, while Islamic countries, through Article 22 of the Tehran Summit Declaration, have also requested such a right.
After the issue of Palestine, the world's crisis hotspots include Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and Ukraine. Simultaneously, over the last two decades, Iran's peaceful nuclear program has been placed on the UN's agenda through the dubious efforts of major powers. Although the world's great powers, especially the United States, acted unilaterally and "preemptively" in the first three countries under the guise of combating terrorism and dangerous weapons, the UN has failed to demonstrate an active and effective role or approach.
Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that the organization's record on another of its very important goals—the fight against poverty and hunger—is not particularly stellar. Millions of Africans continue to live in absolute poverty, and the famine and starvation of defenseless people in Gaza and even Somalia are but the tip of the iceberg. Interestingly, as acknowledged by the organization's own rapporteurs, having one liter of clean, treated drinking water per day remains a dream for more than half of the world's population, who survive on a per capita income of less than two to five dollars a day.
In a general summary, considering the escalating trend of regional and global crises that have led to genocide and widespread crimes against humanity, the performance of international bodies—especially in the Ukraine crisis and the recent war in Gaza with the continued massacre of thousands of innocent women and children by the Zionist regime—is by no means acceptable to global public opinion. It must be admitted that, on one hand, the current sprawling structure of international organizations fails to achieve a passing grade in efficiency. Due to their lack of significant success in the third millennium, they are in urgent need of a fundamental metamorphosis and structural reform with a charter-based, justice-oriented approach.
On the other hand, the decline in the role and status of the United Nations and other regional and international structures, such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, has been acknowledged by many countries and political and international figures. Given their performance in diplomatic equations and in resolving the current agonizing crises, they are not perceived as having a high capacity for effective action.
Ali Beman Eghbali Zarch, Head of the Eurasia Studies Group
(The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the IPIS)