A good fight amid lost wars

ABSENCE OF ONLY FORUM WHERE 193 NATIONS MEET MIGHT COST THE NEXT WAR A LOT MORE

- M MUNEER

UESTIONS ARE ONCE again swirling about the relevance of the United Nations as the world watches yet another war unfold with impressive indifference to diplomatic efforts. As the Iran attacks continue for the third week, critics argue that the conflict—widely described in some circles as illegal and unfair—has left the UN helpless and ineffective.

Social media has filled the analytical vacuum with its usual mix of geopolitical insight and conspiracy theory. Some speculate that the war conveniently diverts attention from lingering scandals tied to Jeffrey Epstein. Others propose darker scenarios involving strategic leverage, diplomatic blackmail, or mysterious dossiers that allegedly make a certain global leader unusually cooperative.

And what has the UN done? It has convened meetings. It has expressed grave concern. It has issued statements urging restraint.

To be fair, this is not entirely surprising. The UN was designed to prevent global conflict through diplomacy and collective pressure, but it has always struggled when major powers decide to ignore polite multilateral disapproval. When the permanent members of the Security Council themselves take sides—or hold veto power—the organisation’s ability to enforce peace is minimal.

Which raises an impolite but increasingly popular question: if the UN cannot meaningfully stop wars involving powerful nations, what exactly is the world buying with its annual membership fee?

The UN’s regular annual budget for 2026 is about $3.45 billion, covering its core activities such as diplomacy, human rights work, and development coordination. Add to that the peacekeeping budget of roughly $5.38 billion, which funds around 70,000 military, police, and civilian personnel deployed across conflict zones worldwide.