While studying the League of Nations, the failed predecessor to today’s UN, I came across a conclusion that stayed with me long after I closed the book: The League could be no more successful than major powers were willing to make it. It failed not because the idea was wrong, but because powerful nations placed their own interests above collective responsibility. Today, looking at the UN, I see the same pattern taking shape. The UN has passed countless resolutions on Palestine. None have been enforced. In Lebanon, civilians continue to suffer. In Gaza, the death toll rises while the UN Security Council remains paralysed by veto politics. Even during the ongoing US-Iran conflict, the temporary peace did not come through the UN. It came through Pakistan’s quiet and tireless diplomacy.
The UN, like the League before it, is only as strong as its most powerful members allow it to be. When those members have a stake in a conflict, the institution falls silent. And silence, in the face of suffering, is not neutrality. It is a choice. If the UN does not reform, if the veto power of a handful of nations continues to override the conscience of the world, then this institution risks becoming what the League of Nations became. A chapter in a textbook. A warning nobody listened to. We owe it to the next generation to do better.
Ghulam Rasool
Hyderabad
