The United Nations was founded in San Francisco eighty years ago with the intention of serving as an institutional and moral safeguard against the resurgence of war and representing the collective conscience of humanity. The UN Charter begins with the pledge to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war; but the conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine and Kashmir cast doubt on the viability of this goal. Although the United Nation is still a major platform for dialogue but its ability to effectively enforce peace frequently hinges on the political will of its member states.
The most catastrophic humanitarian disasters since World War II coincide with the UN’s 80th anniversary. The entire community and semblance of life in Gaza has been destroyed, people in Ukraine are under constant bombardment, and the right to self-determination in Kashmir has been suppressed for decades of political deadlock. Together, these issues highlight a structural dilemma. Institutions become morally and operationally indecisive when power dynamics collide with humanitarian duty. This indecisiveness is now restricting the same system that was established to prevent future conflicts.
Gaza is the place where this failure is most evident. Following the 2023 escalation, the civilian infrastructure was devastated by airstrikes and ground operations. Humanitarian agencies and independent observers reported that more than 67,000 Palestinians have been killed and more than two million are displaced by the mid of 2025. Convoys delivering humanitarian aid are governed by strict procedures, although around 80% of the Gaza population relies on humanitarian assistance.
Only 26% of the UN’s 6.6 billion appeal for Gaza and the occupied territories in 2025 was financed, forcing the closure of significant initiatives. The UN’s role was reduced to express concern, since the Security Council was unable to implement multiple ceasefire resolutions due to frequent vetoes. UN’s inactivity in Gaza represents a historic moral failing for a body that was established to prevent genocide.
The Global South is particularly affected by this erosion of confidence in collective security. The UN’s selective measures are seen as a double standard by majority states. The legitimacy of the entire organization stands damaged because of the discriminatory application of humanitarian law. Pakistan’s repeated calls for the protection of non-combatant people and an independent international investigation into Gaza’s civilian deaths reflect a larger demand that the UN must act as a neutral umpire rather than a political spectator.
Read More: UN Charter as Legal Foundation of a Multipolar World
The situation in Ukraine presents a different aspect of the same issue: the structural paralysis of the Security Council structure. Tens of thousands of civilian deaths and the verified displacement of more than six million people in Europe have been acknowledged by the UN since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Yet the Security Council itself is unable to take significant action as Russia, which is one of the belligerents, is also a permanent member with veto power.
Although they were not legally binding but the General Assembly’s resolutions against aggression had symbolic value. The body created in 1945 to maintain peace collapsed just when the major powers were engaged in conflict. The UN’s design is to blame for this, not its principles.
Another example of this long-standing contradiction is Kashmir. The people of Jammu and Kashmir were guaranteed the right to self-determination through a plebiscite by the UN resolutions of 1948 and 1949. The promise has not yet been fulfilled more than 70 years later. At least four conflicts between India and Pakistan have resulted from disputes since 1947, each of which has threatened the regional security. Since 1989, more than 96,000 people have died as a result of conflict-related violence.
Yet the UN’s involvement in the Kashmir dispute is still symbolic and restricted to making occasional statements. Despite Pakistan’s repeated demands for UN mediation, India is unwilling to allow any external involvement. Kashmir is a prime example of how the UN’s power erodes due to a lack of political will, despite the continued suffering of people.
The pattern is the same in Gaza, Ukraine and Kashmir: three interrelated factors; selective morality, the veto system and asymmetry of resources limit the UN’s ability to end the conflict. The veto has evolved into a paralysis from its original purpose of maintaining great power unanimity. In 2024, seven draft resolutions were vetoed, the majority of which dealt with disputes in which permanent members or their supporters had a direct stake. The UN Charter’s universality is also threatened by selective humanitarian intervention, which weighs political ties against urgency. The ongoing underfunding of UN relief efforts shows that morality is handcuffed and selective.
Read More: UN Charter’s Anniversary: Pakistan Calls Out Injustice in Kashmir, Palestine
Despite these shortcomings, the UN continues to play a significant role. It is the biggest humanitarian platform in the world, coordinating life-saving aid via agencies like UNICEF, WHO and UNHCR. However, the moral validity cannot be substituted for practical utility. It is important to distinguish between institutional survival and its efficacy. The UN must adapt if it is to win back the trust of nations around the world. This includes strengthening independent fact-finding agencies, creating protected humanitarian corridors in conflict areas, and restricting the veto through voluntary restraint. These actions can restore some faith that the UN is still humanity’s conscience, but they won’t halt conflicts.
As longtime supporters of equitable multilateralism, nations like Pakistan may play a constructive role in pushing for these reforms. Pakistan has remained committed to the collective security principles and is one of the key contributors to UN peace missions. Its voice, together with the voices of the other nations in the Global South, can help increase the pressure on the UN to become more inclusive and accountable, which will benefit people rather than power.
The United Nations is facing a moral dilemma eight decades after its founding. The silence of Kashmir, the debris of Gaza, and the Kyiv bunkers all echo the same message that the never again vow has not been kept. Created to provide humanity a voice outside of politics, the UN has now diminished to a whisper. Regaining the institution’s essence rather than preserving its structure is the task for the coming decades.
Despite the setbacks, United Nations is still regarded as one of humanity’s most ambitious cooperative efforts. Its resilience throughout the decades of geopolitical turmoil attests to the global commitment to dialogue rather than facilitating the conflicts. The core of UN’s purpose which is to maintain peace through collective responsibility is still as important now as it was eighty years ago, even the path ahead calls for reforms and a renewed commitment. The United Nations must rediscover its purpose to priorities humanity once more rather than its authority if it is to continue to exist for another 80 years.
*The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of TDI.
Faiza Siddique
Faiza Siddique is an undergraduate student of International Relations at the National University of Modern Languages (NUML), and a Research Assistant at the Institute of Regional Studies, Islamabad. She can be reached at faizasiddique9903@gmail.com
