Achilles' heel

On October 24th, the United Nations turned 80. This significant birthday was celebrated rather quietly. The topic evokes indifference, and even embarrassment. From many quarters, voices rise that ruthlessly describe the UN as a failed institution, irrelevant if not useless.

The war of aggression unleashed on February 24, 2022, by the Kremlin autocrat and the tragedy unfolding in Palestine since October 7, 2023, have contributed to the perception that in two conflicts over which the organization should have competence and powers of action, it has in fact “done nothing.” Hence, from many sides, the conclusion is drawn of the UN’s uselessness and irrelevance.

Eighty years ago, at the San Francisco conference, 50 states (with Poland joining later), declaring themselves “determined to spare future generations (i.e., us, ed.) the scourge of war which twice in this generation has brought unspeakable afflictions to humanity,” chose to create an international organization that would ensure peace and security in international relations. It was a noble and ambitious project, whose cornerstone was a general prohibition on the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states. This was tempered by the recognition of the “natural right” to legitimate defense against an armed attack and, above all, by the provision of a “collective security system,” centered on a Security Council endowed with decision-making and action powers. In short, it aimed to establish a form of international monopoly over the legitimate use of force. Certain powers (United States, USSR then Russia, China, United Kingdom, and France) were given special weight, endowed with a “veto right.” These five were to form a sort of “directorship” of international politics. But a directorship only works if the “directors” agree. Here, the UN’s Achilles’ heel quickly became apparent. Already shortly after the end of the Second World War, the Cold War began, followed by the collapse of the USSR and its satellite regimes. Nationalist China was replaced by the People’s Republic of China. Numerous regional conflicts stained the decades following the end of that war, which was supposed to end all wars. The USA, Russia, China, and the United Kingdom (France never really counted) failed to embody the world “policeman” that should have guaranteed peace, security, and respect for the law. During the Cold War, a “balance of terror” (a product of the nuclear era) replaced the nineteenth-century “balance of power,” but it did not prevent bloody regional wars.

On October 24, 1984, Professor Norberto Bobbio delivered a brilliant lecture at the Italian Society for International Organization (SIOI), entitled United Nations: A Critical Assessment of Forty Years. The great philosopher of law and politics noted: “Today, forty years after the end of the Second World War and the birth of the United Nations, we would be in the best position to write a book entitled The World Without Peace. As the international community has become increasingly universal, embracing all the peoples of the earth, the lack of security has become equally universal.”

Forty more years have passed, and now eighty years old, the UN shows all the wrinkles of old age. The composition of the Security Council reflects the world of 1945. All reform attempts crash against the rock of the unanimous consent requirement of the five permanent members. They, of course, have no interest in giving up their exclusive power. These eight decades have shown the impossibility of effective action when a great power’s interest is at stake, directly (Russia) or indirectly (USA for Israel). The “great powers” increasingly ignore international law and revert to armed force. War, once forbidden, has become possible again. Russia and the USA, nuclear powers, use or threaten to use force. China, the planet’s second power, watches and prepares to strike Taiwan. The European Union, ever less of a “union” and hostage to various “sovereigntist” governments, is incapable of assuming the role envisioned by the founding fathers, and helplessly witnesses the play of the three largest powers (not to mention ambitious regional powers such as Israel, Turkey, Iran, India…). So, what then? Is the UN really useless, irrelevant? Does the hatred that seems to poison relations between states find no effective antidote in the UN?

On November 11, in Vienna, President Mattarella warned: “The geopolitical framework we face, from the ongoing Russian war of aggression in Ukraine, to the crisis in the Middle East, to instability in various parts of the African continent, often associated with dramatic humanitarian crises, clearly requires active UN support, not its dismantling. […] There are no alternatives to multilateralism unless one wishes to take the path of permanent conflicts, returning to a primitive vision of relations among peoples, the outcomes of which are historically and tragically well known.”

One thing seems certain: a world without the UN would be in worse conditions. The Glass Palace remains the seat of tenacious and patient multilateral diplomacy, where governments meet and talk. As Dag Hammarskjöld, the only Secretary-General who gave his life in service, effectively stated: “The UN was not created to give humanity paradise, but to save it from hell.” And it is still there trying to do just that.

Edoardo Greppi
NP December 2025