World News: United Nations Confronts Changing Role Amidst Global Conflicts
- Details
- Category: Haute This Issue
- Published on Monday, 27 April 2026 16:38
- Written by Olivier Longhi
The United Nations Organization is confronting a trial of legitimacy with the Ukrainian and Iranian conflicts, as the global governing body seems outdated and incapable of influencing the current confrontations, as evidenced by the failures of UNIFIL.
With the death of two French soldiers in Lebanon, both of whom were members of UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon), which is in mourning and held hostage by the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the role of its supervisory body, the United Nations (UN), is once again being questioned. If NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) seems to see its fate gradually sealed in the years to come, what about the UN?
World News: NATO Loses Influence Over US-Iran War
To understand its potential evolution or announced death, it is necessary to go back to the principles that presided over its creation in 1945 and how they are in adequacy, or inadequacy, with the new world order. Created in the aftermath of the Second World War by a humanity traumatized by an unprecedented conflict, the UN is founded on the principle of negotiation between nations in order to avoid any conflagration.
Humanist and philanthropic, the principle is in fact accompanied by a set of structures aimed at controlling the action of the UN, including a permanent council, a security council, and an armed force, the Blue Helmets (to which UNIFIL belongs), a militarized force supposed to ensure peace not by the use of weapons but by its sole presence in situ.
World News: China (Wink, Wink) Emerges as Goodwill Mediator in US-Iran Conflict
World News: From Saigon to Tehran
Special Interest
However, created at the beginning of the Cold War, the UN quickly found itself locked in by its principles and institutions, including the Permanent Council, composed of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia (before 1991 of the USSR) and China, all of which had a right of veto that allowed them to oppose each other in the end any decision taken by the Security Council if their particular interest is at stake. This structural inertia therefore partly explains the UN's inability to act today and above all justifies the questions that are emerging about its usefulness in the new world order.
During the Cold War, in a bi-polar world, the UN could move towards either bloc depending on the circumstances, but in a deconstructed and multi-polarized world, it finds itself relegated to the rank of an international body with almost no influence when it was already weak before 1991. General de Gaulle, who in 1960 had described it, almost prophetically, as a "thing", perhaps did not think he was saying so well in view of the current situation reduced to the Lebanese case.
Israel, supported by the United States, holder of a veto right within the permanent council and ally of the Jewish state, knows full well that its military action in southern Lebanon, where UNIFIL is stationed, will never be condemned. As for the other states, held hostage by the American veto, the need to eradicate Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and to ensure Israel's security, their room for maneuver is ultimately extremely limited.
World News: Iran is in Crisis, 12K Protestors Killed, Government is Falling
Cynicism and violence
What does the future hold for the UN? The question is not new and has come back like a sea serpent since its creation and its first failures. Trapped in its non-violent principles in a world that has become excessively so, hostage to the functioning of its outdated institutions because they were imagined in the aftermath of a global trauma that has now been sent back to history, the UN is proving to be powerless even though it is articulated around humanist values that are no longer valid to this day.
The violence of Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump, the cynicism of Benjamin Netanyahu or the false delicacy of Xi Jing Ping have finished off an anachronistic organization.
So, obviously, the question arises as to whether there are any motives capable of supporting the future existence of the United Nations. Yes, provided that it renews itself both in its original charter and in its means and objectives, adapting to the challenge of the times, that is, by opting for an active and no longer passive position, without necessarily becoming a supra-national institution but an international body free of partisan influences. The road is still long...
World News: Ukraine, U.S., Russia Meet Hoping to Restart Peace Process
Bio: Olivier Longhi has extensive experience in European history. A seasoned journalist with fifteen years of experience, he is currently a professor of history and geography in the Toulouse region of France. He has held a variety of publishing positions, including Head of Agency and Chief of Publishing. A journalist and recognized blogger, editor, and editorial project manager, he has trained and managed editorial teams, worked as a journalist for various local radio stations, was a press and publishing consultant, and was a communications consultant.
