People treat the UN like it's a world government, but nothing could be further from the truth. UN resolutions are only suggestions unless major countries don't veto them. The only time it passed a powerful resolution was during the Korean War, and that's because the Soviet Union was boycotting it, so they couldn't veto it.

The UN is basically an international group chat, they can only suggest resolutions for any given conflict but cannot enforce them, especially since there are 5 countries with veto power and wildly different geopolitical interests.

The UN’s weakness was showing way before the Iraq war, things like their failed operations in Rwanda, Somalia, and former Yugoslavia come to mind.

"Has the UN ever been relevant?" should be the real question.

The UN is just the table of negotiations. If the people around the table can't come to a collective decision and act accordingly, it's hardly the table's fault.

The UN being "deeply concerned" when a conflict happens is about as helpful as a fish having legs.

The UN became a joke when Saudi Arabia was given a seat on the Human Rights Council.

The biggest issue is that the security council's 5 permanent members are always the countries that have interests in foreign nations, and that are the most keen to veto any resolution against their interests. Giving them veto power is like letting a drunkard decide if his alcohol should be taken away.

“Truth is, the game was rigged from the start” Fallout: League of Nations

the un is an organization for international diplomacy and cooperation, not a world government. if you expect the un to do something it's not meant to do, of course you will be disappointed. There's no way to make a un like organization work if the superpowers and great powers aren't interested in cooperating (unless you give the un an army and a monopoly on nuclear weapons i guess, but i doubt that's the kind of world almost anyone wants to live in)

The best way to describe UN relevancy: Iran is the head of UN human rights council 🤦

UN: We need to talk about *insert conflict or humanitarian crisis here* Major power causing said conflict/crisis: No we don't. (veto) UN: Understandable, have a nice day. This pretty much answers the question.

The security Council nations have always vetoed whatever they didn't feel like doing and just acted on their own multiple times, sometimes even against UN resolutions they didn't even bother to argue, the real question here is when has the UN ever been relevant?

I think distrust for UN started even before Iraq invasion. NATO similarly ignored UN and bombed Serbia in 1999. Also UN completely failed to prevent Rwandan Genocide and they just stood by while 800 thousand people were slaughtered. In Serebrenica they even helped VRS to separate men and women,not to mention that UN "safe zones" in Bosnia and Croatia were completely useless. We could go even further than that...

The UN is like the holiday Festivus. The airing of grievances is about all that is accomplished.

The UN is basically the equivalent to a global Homeowners association

League of Nations 2: Electric Boogaloo

The UN often presents itself as a world government and certain people treat it as such when it suits. However, it isn't a a governing body it is a forum for international co-operation despite what a bunch of career politicians and bureaucrats say.

People often misinterpret the UN as a global government. At the same time, UNSC vetoes are what's hindering most progress.

The UN is not objective and cannot be objective when it is basically a representation of the number of countries aligned with each of the world's major cultures. There are more than x100 times Muslims in the world as there are Jews and there are 50 Muslim majority countries while there is only one Jewish state, and the only people that feel directly invested in any Israel-Palestine situation is Israel itself, to an extent the US, and the numerous Muslim countries which are almost unanimously automatically aligned with the Palestinians regardless of the facts on the ground. The UN proportionally gives voice to those numerous Muslim countries, and in turn the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council are an ironic joke. From UN Watch: "From 2015 through 2022, the UN General Assembly has adopted 140 resolutions on Israel and 68 on other countries. For texts and voting sheets, see the UN Watch Database, which will include the 2022 UNGA resolutions after they are published by the UN in January 2023. The UN Watch Database also documents that from 2006 through 2022, the UN Human Rights Council has adopted 99 resolutions against Israel, 41 against Syria, 13 against Iran, 4 against Russia, and 3 against Venezuela". Another breakdown of 2022 resolutions: "2022 UN General Assembly resolutions on: 🇰🇵 North Korea 1 🇦🇫 Afghanistan 1 🇻🇪 Venezuela 0 🇲🇲 Myanmar 1 🇱🇧 Lebanon 0 🇵🇰 Pakistan 0 Hamas 0 🇩🇿 Algeria 0 🇹🇷 Turkey 0 🇷🇺 Russia 6 🇨🇳 China 0 🇶🇦 Qatar 0 🇸🇦 Saudi 0 🇮🇱 Israel 15 🇨🇺 Cuba 0 🇸🇾 Syria 1 🇮🇶 Iraq 0 🇮🇷 Iran 1 🇺🇸 U.S. 1" List of current members of the UNHRC (end of term in parenthesis): Algeria(2025) Benin(2024) Cameroon(2024) Côte d’Ivoire(2023) Eritrea(2024) Gabon(2023) Gambia(2024) Malawi(2023) Morocco(2025) Senegal(2023) Somalia(2024) South Africa(2025) Sudan(2025) Bangladesh(2025) China(2023) India(2024) Kazakhstan(2024) Kyrgyzstan(2025) Malaysia(2024) Maldives(2025) Nepal(2023) Pakistan(2023) Qatar(2024) United Arab Emirates(2024) Uzbekistan(2023) Vietnam(2025) Czechia(2023) Georgia(2025) Lithuania(2024) Montenegro(2024) Romania(2025) Ukraine(2023) Argentina(2024) Bolivia (Plurinational State of)(2023) Chile(2025) Costa Rica(2025) Cuba(2023) Honduras(2024) Mexico(2023) Paraguay(2024) Belgium(2025) Finland(2024) France(2023) Germany(2025) Luxembourg(2024) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland(2023) United States of America(2024)

Everybody says this every now and then because they are expecting the UN to do every impossible thing in the book like enforcing permanent world peace of becoming sort of a global government. Yet they keep doing their thing, slowly yet steady. Voting in the assembly tells us a lot about the state of geopolitics and the agencies do a lot of humanitarian work. It's far from perfect (we all know the Hunan Rights committe is a joke) but the discourse around it is sooo simplistic it's tiresome

You could replace the UN with a Discord channel that each country's foreign affairs department has access to and would literally not be able to tell the difference. The UN physically exists primarily to spruik business class seats on international flights for their well heeled staffers.

Back when my country, Indonesia, was being attacked by the Netherlands in 1949, the UN was the one that actually pressured the Dutch to resign from their position in the East Indies (Indonesia's name during the colonial era). It's sad that almost a century later, the influence of the UN has declined so much.

Same thing happened with the League of Nations. Its purpose is to be a place for diplomacy between members and thats it. If it does start acting like a government then we are in trouble

The only credit I think that the UN really deserves is that it lasted longer than the League of Nations, but was just as effective.

No. It begun with NATO attacking Yugoslavia without approval from UN.

The UN system has been broken ever since the PRC was admitted and ROC expelled back in 1971. Even as we speak today, the ROC on Taiwan; an independent democratic country, with a similar population size as Australia of 23.5 million human beings not represented in the UN and everyone else is ok with that says a lot about this broken organization.

I think the answer as many have pointed out in the comments is that the vast majority of the public do not understand what the purpose of the UN actually is.

Africa realised this long ago after the Rwandan Genocide, There's a reason why soon after this Genocide the OAU was disbanded and the AU was formed, The AU hasn't largely replaced the UN in Africa but it has increasingly taken an active role and crucially most young Africans increasingly see the AU as a legitimate representative of the African people. The relative success of the mission in Somalia will only further strengthen the AUs position in Africa. A large part of the US global dominance is due to control of these institutions, institutions which it created but which it is now undermining, this will be probably a massive own goal

It's still a forum where all countries can meet. Many who call the UN impotent are the very same undermining it. Many others have unrealistic expectations of an organisation that was made intentionally week when it comes to enforcement. Powerful countries blatantly disregard global support for initiatives that go against their own interests and complain when others don't support theirs.

Johnathan irons from call of duty advancement warfare might say "The UN is the relic of its past where nations come together and solved the problems of world, now they outsource the problem to me!"

It's beneficial that the un becomes irrelevant.

I get that mentioning Israel is good for views but you were too fixed on only presenting the USA vetoing resolutions against Israel and not mentioned Russia vetoing resolutions against Iran, and Syria

To solve one major issue is to disassemble the permanent security council. And that includes UK, France, Russia, USA and China.

Appearing useless yes, decline no. It has always been this way, even with the precursor in the league of nations.

The UN constantly panders to illiberal and authoritarian regimes while lecturing liberal regimes and democratic ones. An immense sense of urgency for condemnation for the ones that follow rules but none for the ones that constantly break them. What can be expected of the coming irrelevance of the UN, we saw this with COVID too, in which WHO had no tact or urgency to demand China to just release info that everybody else does, then constantly babies it.

UN: We appoint Iran as appointed to UN's human right's. And we have Russia in the security council. Also UN: Why are we irrelevant?

Giving a small group, who don’t like each other, the power to unilaterally veto anything has set itself up for failure. Democracies and authoritarian regimes don’t tend to get along.

The UN was Irrelevant over 20 years age! As retired US military I've had the opportunity to work with the UN on several occasions. Rwanda, Macedonia/ Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and others in Africa. I can say that every time I have worked with the UN they were consistent! 1. wealthy highly educated stupide people where in charge. 2. Always seemed to be more worried about how to get more funding than anything else. 3. always indecisive, making a decision might, lose them their position, Money or might fix the problem and make the mission end so not making a decision was best! 4. Only way to get any work done or decisions made was to go to Friday night mixers (Drunk Fest) and wait till decision makers where drunk and have them sign paperwork to accomplish any thing. As a US soldier that has often worked with the UN, I have never seen them be successful. Just like Socialism/ Communism the UN is a great Idea on paper But fails in execution because of people's natural greed and lust for power!

Iran is the head chair of the UN human rights council. This organization would've been a joke if it wasn't so sad

It was created after WW2, so it might become relevant after WW3, which was what the UN was created to avoid 😢

Of course Israel is mad at the UN just look at how many resolutions targeted Israel and compare it to all of the conflicts around the world

What does the UN peacekeeping force do in southern Lebanon? Apparently nothing. What a waste of money.

How can something become irrelevant when it was ALWAYS irrelevant?

When was the UN ever even relevant

We need more UN permanent members and instead of one country vetoing it should be two countries or a majority.

Get rid of the UN.

it feels exactly like the league of nations before failing after not taking any meaningful actions

I worked for the UN for several years. Yes, many UN and other aid agency staff recruited locally do belong to Hamas or in the West Bank, Fatah. If you look at UN staff who die in service from 'natural causes' it is huge in Gaza. Indeed UN staff recruited locally and who subsequently die in service is highest in Gaza. Over the past two decades they have made up well over half of all UN staff worldwide who died 'in -service'. Strangely, in Gaza people get recruited into permeant jobs who a few months later are found to have life threatening conditions (lung cancer and cardio-vascular disease among fat men who smoke 40+ a day is common) . Then the UN pays for their health care and give a big payout to their family when they die. NO ONE gets a job as a local employee with the UN or any international aid agency in Gaza without Hamas approval. This was the specific reason I left the UN. And because they were paying bribes to Islamist terrorists in Mali to let UN aid convoys through, while UN peacekeepers (coppers and soldiers loaned to the UN mainly from developing countries) were being attacked regularly and killed or injured.

I believe that the UN since 2014 onwards has no credibility for its problems taking account of proper data in conflicts in Africa, and in Turkey, and right now with Russia. they should provide peace operations but sometimes they do the contrary , like covering how Turkey did treat Syrians refugees just because Turkey was a member at that time.

there has never been a successsful peace keeping mission, if you don't withdraw the troops you can't say the peaccekeeping was successful

I think the UN needs to better recognise its impotence. Constantly talking about or voting on Israel - Hamas cease-fires, was just pointing out that the UN can't do anything. While the countries that step forward as mediators are doing the work that the UN can do, allow dialogue between two parties

The UN is more and more looking like the League of Nations.

1:32 "Now, the fact that Israel feels confident making these accusations". you're saying it like there's no truth in them and just carry on. the UN's human rights council keeps having states who openly violate human rights as members year after year

The UN was pretty much dead with Kosovo. Both in 99 when NATO illegally bombed Yugoslavia without a UN mandate and then in 2008 when Resolution 1244 was trampled upon and blatantly disregarded with the so-called ”independence“ of Kosovo.

I mean the fact that people still show up at the UN and people still talk about what happens shows that the UN is still functioning. It was never the world government, or the world police, or the world’s resolution. And as everyone knows negotiations always require willing parties. The UN is as strong and relevant as global diplomacy is.

The better question is, has the UN ever been relevant?

Useless organization. Just words but no enforcement.

Sad state of the world if the majority has a positive view of the UN.

Since 2015, the General Assembly has adopted 140 resolutions criticizing Israel, mainly over its treatment of the Palestinians, its relationships with neighboring countries and other alleged wrongdoings. Over the same period, it has passed 68 (!!!) resolutions against all other countries combined. No matter how you feel about Israel, it’s a tiny country with 0.1% of the world population, and obviously not the only country with human rights violations. The obsession of the bad actors in the UN with Israel is coming at the expense of other issues and is one of the main reasons of the declining of the UN reputation.

It's like the league of nations all over again

As Sir Appleby commented once: "the UN is the accepted forum for international hatred" (yes prime minister)😂

The problem with the UN is it has no credibility and doesn't seem to have any serious intention of abiding by the values it espouses. When you have saudia arabia on the womens rights commission, Iran leading a human rights council and condemn Israel, the only jewish state, more than every other country combined despite there being obviously more egregious human rights violations and war crimes committed by and in other states, it becomes hard for anyone to take you seriously as an organization dedicated to human rights, world unity, equality or world peace.

UN used to have teeth back when Scandinavians were Secretary Generals.

The UN has long since lost its credibility. There is the issue of enforcement, where the UN cannot really ensure adherence to its rulings because it is not a real government, but that is not even the main issue. The UN in the past had at least some moral and legal standing, especially among democratic and generally law abiding countries. But how can an organization which purports to uphold morality, national and human rights be credible or succesful when the majority of is members are dictatorial evil regimes that do not uphold any of these values or rules in their own countries? Hence, the UN has become just a vehicle for the political promotion of the worst regimes humanity has to offer. For example, did you know that Iran chaired the last U.N. human rights council meeting? Or that almost 1/2 the resolutions of this council were only about Israel? (which regardless of your stance on the issue is far from the only or most pressing human rights issue in the world in the last few decades). Western countries that actually care about values and morality should abandon this morally bankrupt organization and build something better instead, an organization that would actually vet its members before acceptance, and uphold them to a higher standard. Let all the dictators remain in the UN and role play at being "accountable" with each other.

That's what you get when corruption. When you try to fund and include *every* opinion in the world into a debate, even if it's said by basically ISIS members, you get people not taking you seriously.

I want to remind people that during the Yugoslav wars. A Norwegian with a muscle car kitted out by the USA managed to do what the UN called impossible and abandoned. It should tell you how effective the UN is.

Examples such as resolution 1770 of the removal of Hezbollah forces from the borders of northern Israel, which the UN was responsible for and failed to implement further explains how unnecessary this organization is

Maybe it's because I wasn't paying attention, but you mentioned you'd discuss something about how reform could fix it but I didn't see any of that?

It's a bit strange to say that the UN's lack of relevance started with Iraq. I guess you guys forgot the Rwandan genocide, where the UN had boots on the ground, but did absolutely nothing to prevent the genocide.

If the UN really cared about Gaza they would have sent some soldiers to show the IDF how they SHOULD combat hamas instead of condemning every option the IDF has to do.

The UN is as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike

Terrible comparison between UN peace keeping budget and NYPD budget. UN peacekeepers are paid and funded by Their OWN national sates. Wages are paid by the contributor country, transport is paid by the contributor country, equipment is paid..you guessed it...

It appears to be broken, but perhaps it should be totally revamped and restructured instead of eliminating the organization. It was created with the best of intentions and should be modernized to help it achieve those goals. Remove all permanent seats, remove all veto privileges, and institute equal financial membership fees for all participating countries. Make all members equal in every aspect.

The un officialy died the day the considered telling us americans to eat less meat. Who tf do you think you are telling me to eat less meat...

The reason for Israels harsh rethoric in the UN is a combination of simply having a far right nationalist government and the fact that the UN human rights council excludes Israel while keeping countries like Iran, North Korea, Somalia Etc inside which makes Israel ignore those resolutions as they just see it as hypocritical.

As a Cypriot, I can tell you that the UN has been on the wrong side of things...

Unless UN is reformed, i dont think there is any reason for its existence

Israel is confident making those accusations and didn't get much pushback because they're true, many UN employees in Gaza work for Hamas and helped cover up terrorism. What authority the UN had always came from being able to be perceived as neutral, and the UN has explicitly chosen to side with Hamas in this conflict.

IT ALWAYS WAS IRRELEVANT

The UN could not condemn what happened in 7th October and ignoring violation of human rights around the world like in china or Saudia Arabia because of dictatorships control the human rights council so there is need for a massive reform

Real question: Was it ever?

Its pretty pointless when the US can just decide what to do. If the entire rest of the UN wants them to lift the unlawful sanctions on Cuba, then there is nothing that they can do if the US says no.

The problem is that the UN has no teeth. So what if they tell you not to do something. What’s the worse that will happen?

The real question is, has the UN ever been relevant?

"UN peacekeepers were rather successful" lol, this might be the biggest lie I've heard all year.

It's either ignorance or malice, neither being a particularly good look, but not mentioning the travesty of the UN sponsored Durban Conferences, the anti-Israel and anti-West bent, the conspicuous silence in the face of anti-Israel atrocities, and the evidence of antisemitism among UNRWA staff is hard to understand here.

World War 2 happened when League of Nation failed. World War 3 similar pattern.

It’s funny you dedicated half of it about how they are not successful with the Israel but you didn’t mention how they disproportionately get resolutions against Israel and almost don’t handle any other conflict, no matter how much more severe it is

No. On the count of the fact it never was relevant to begin with.

The more pertinent question is: Since when has the UN ever been relevant?

The veto powers render the whole thing useless. Because you just have to be one of the five or a friend of one of the five

Why would Israel face repercussions for saying the truth?

You forgot to mention the UN 1701 resolution about Hezbollah not crossing into southern Lebanon. This resolution was mad in 2006 and was not kept. The UN did nothing to stop it from happening. The UN has no meaning if this organisation can not be upholding and policing its own resolution. And right now the country responsible for human rights is Iran. A country well known for its human rights abuses.

Short answer: Yes Long answer: Yes, been so for a while.

They not so irrelevant, it seems their duty is to remind us this everyday: "Deeply Concerned"

I believe the UN has unrealistic expectations of countries in the middle east and other unstable and developing regions

The only law that has always governed international relationships is the law of the stronger side.

I see the mirroring of state of the international community as the best thing that UN does. Not knowing the stance of other countries is worse than knowing and not being able to do anything about it, especially for individual people who live under these countries.

"The UN is a relic of a time where countries were unique in their abilities to solve the world problems"