UN as a stage prop Loud words, no power

Among the statements issued by leaders of numerous countries and heads of international organizations, who welcomed the agreements reached between the United States and Iran and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, as personally announced by Donald Trump, the reaction of UN Secretary-General António Guterres is particularly noteworthy. 

The statements by the head of this organization about a “critical step” and the UN’s readiness to “support the achievement of a sustainable and comprehensive peace” appear to be an attempt to remind the world of the existence of an organization whose role in modern conflicts has long been the subject of serious doubts.

There are numerous examples of this in modern history, including cases involving Azerbaijan. For more than a quarter of a century, 20 per cent of the territory of the Azerbaijani Republic remained under Armenian occupation. At the same time, UN Security Council resolutions demanding the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian armed forces from the occupied Azerbaijani territories remained merely on paper — Armenia simply ignored them. More importantly, the United Nations took no action to urge Yerevan to exercise restraint and comply with these resolutions. As a result, Azerbaijan restored justice on its own: it liberated its territories, thereby implementing the UN Security Council resolutions.

Other relevant examples can also be noted: the United Nations failed to demonstrate any meaningful role during the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia, nor did it prevent the annexation of Crimea or the conflict in Donbas. This international organization also proved powerless in preventing the full-scale Russian-Ukrainian war, during which, for more than four years, people in Ukraine have been losing their lives, cities have been destroyed, and monuments of World Cultural Heritage have been damaged.

The UN has demonstrated similar helplessness in the Middle East, where the situation grew increasingly tense with each passing day — the sides exchanged rhetoric that clearly contained signs of an impending war. This unfolded before the eyes of the entire world, while international institutions, including the United Nations, showed a complete lack of effective response. As a result, the Middle East was plunged into yet another war, whose repercussions have affected, to varying degrees, virtually every country in the world.

And here a logical question arises: “Why has an organization that, according to its own Charter, is obliged to play a key role in maintaining international peace and security once again found itself as an observer rather than a participant in the process?” The answer is simple and deeply unpleasant: because the UN in its current form lacks both the real instruments of influence and the political will necessary to prevent crises. And if a new escalation occurs — given the complicated history of relations between the United States and Iran, such a possibility cannot be ruled out — there are no grounds to believe that the Organization would be able to effectively prevent it.

This trend has already become a systemic problem: an international institution created to prevent wars increasingly finds itself in the position of a commentator on events that have already taken place. Its resolutions are ignored, its appeals go unanswered, its involvement in real processes remains minimal, and it is only capable of welcoming the normalization of situations in different regions of the world, issuing empty statements and attempting to demonstrate its involvement in the process.

In this context, it is quite possible to assume that even if an agreement is reached between Russia and Ukraine, the UN would issue similar statements: welcoming the development, expressing support, and declaring its readiness to assist. This would become yet another inappropriate and, to some extent, cynical attempt to claim credit for achievements in which it played no actual role.

Meanwhile, the world is changing: conflicts are becoming increasingly complex, prolonged, and devastating. In such geopolitical realities, any loud statements without concrete and targeted actions will be perceived not as a reflection of genuine influence, but as an attempt to imitate it.