By Farhad Omar
I. Opening the Scene
In June 2025, footage emerged: a hospital in Gaza, struck and collapsing. Injured civilians, frantic evacuations, and desperate pleas for a ceasefire. Yet at the United Nations Security Council, diplomacy remained paralysed. Votes tallied 14 in favour, one against. That dissent was enough to prevent action. Once again, humanity was stifled not by disagreement, but by institutional design.
The world witnessed not a failed resolution, but the echo of a deeper problem. The UN was created to prevent war, but its architecture was built to preserve imperial privilege. Seventy-eight years ago, the victors of World War II drafted a global order in their image. Today, that order is failing the very people it was meant to protect.
II. Empire as Bedrock: The UN’s Imperial DNA
Before the San Francisco Conference, the world was shaped by centuries of empire. European powers carved out colonies across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. They wrote the rules of trade, diplomacy, and even humanitarian intervention. When the UN charter was signed in 1945, it enshrined a system that reflected those imperial priorities.
The permanent members of the Security Council, the US, UK, France, the Soviet Union (now Russia), and China were either colonial rulers or their successors. Their presence was presented as a safeguard for global stability. But beneath that stability lay the assumption that newly independent nations were not yet ready for power. They were to be managed, not trusted.
The League of Nations had set this tone earlier through its "Mandate System," placing former colonies under international oversight. The UN retained this mindset through the Trusteeship Council, which supervised "non-self-governing territories." The message was clear: the colonised were to be nurtured under a paternalistic global regime.
This imperial legacy is not just history. It lives on in the veto power, in the permanent membership structure, and in the continuing marginalisation of the Global South. The UN was not designed to deliver equitable global governance. It was designed to stabilise a world order where colonial and imperial powers maintained control, albeit through softer instruments.
The echoes of empire persist in how decisions are made, whose voices are heard, and which conflicts are prioritised. While former colonies have gained independence, the structures of global governance have not fully recognised their sovereignty in decision-making. This tension now defines the UN's role in the modern world.
III. The Veto: A Tool of Power, Not Justice
The veto was designed as a check to prevent conflict among the great powers. Instead, it has become a mechanism of denial.
Between 1946 and 2023, the P5 cast more than 300 vetoes. The United States alone has used its veto more than 50 times to shield Israel. In March 2024, Resolution 2728 calling for a ceasefire in Gaza passed with 14 votes. It failed due to abstentions and counter-vetoes.
Russia has blocked action over Ukraine. China has shielded itself regarding Xinjiang. Inaction followed genocide in Rwanda, chemical attacks in Syria, and ethnic cleansing in Darfur. Each veto dragged the global response toward impotence.
Here lies the paradox: the UN is meant to uphold human rights, yet its most powerful instrument silences them. The veto is not just a procedural tool. It is a political statement that elevates the interests of a few above the lives of the many.
In addition to obstructing intervention, the veto discourages resolution. Knowing a measure will be vetoed, diplomats may avoid proposing it altogether. This creates a chilling effect, preventing even the discussion of urgent crises. The legitimacy of the UN is eroded not only by the veto’s use, but by its looming threat.
IV. The Void of Representation
Of the 15 seats in the Security Council, only five are permanent. The remaining ten rotate among regional blocs. Over 130 UN member states have never held a Council seat.
Today’s economic and demographic giants, such as India, Brazil, Nigeria, and Indonesia, reflect populations and economies far larger than those of many P5 nations, yet none enjoy permanent representation.
Africa, home to 1.4 billion people across 54 countries, has no permanent seat. Japan and Germany, two of the largest financial contributors, remain excluded. This is modernity rendered invisible at the UN’s centre.
Calls for reform, like the G4 proposal (India, Germany, Japan, Brazil) or African Union demands, go nowhere. Article 108 of the UN Charter requires any amendment to be ratified by all permanent members. This effectively gives them veto power over reform. This is not diplomacy. It is entrenchment.
A legitimate global institution must reflect the realities of the world it claims to serve. That includes ensuring representation aligns with today’s political, economic, and social landscape. Without reform, the UN will remain a stage for a past that no longer exists.
V. Power Shifts, a World Reconfigured
After the Cold War, the United States briefly stood unchallenged. That moment has passed. US credibility has eroded following prolonged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, withdrawal from global agreements, and deep domestic division. A 2023 Pew survey found majorities in many European countries doubting American judgment.
At the same time, emerging powers are ascending: China is now the world’s second-largest economy. India, with its population and growing tech prowess, is exerting regional influence. Brazil, Nigeria, and South Africa lead in their regions, shaping policy and alliances.
This global shift is not theoretical. It is real and increasingly vocal. It demands rethinking not only who holds power, but how power is exercised.
These emerging powers are also reshaping norms. They are asserting cultural perspectives, legal traditions, and diplomatic styles that challenge Western paradigms. This is more than a redistribution of economic might. It is a redefinition of legitimacy itself.
VI. BRICS+ as a Grand Gamble
The BRICS grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa has expanded to include Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, the UAE, and others.
Now representing 45 per cent of the world’s population and over 40 per cent of global GDP, BRICS+ has moved from a symbolic alliance to a concrete institution. The New Development Bank loans billions without IMF-style conditionality. Plans for a BRICS Pay system, collective digital currency, and reserve arrangements demonstrate ambitions to sidestep Western financial infrastructure. Expansion is ongoing. China continues driving enlargement to consolidate a new world order.
Still, structural issues persist. Internal divisions, such as democracy versus authoritarianism and competition between India and China, complicate coherence. Yet BRICS is no longer fringe. Its vision is clear: to shape a polycentric world where old institutions no longer hold unquestioned power.
The success of BRICS+ depends not only on opposing Western dominance but on constructing durable institutions. Its members must navigate their differences to create coherent alternatives. If they do, they may establish a governance model that challenges both the structure and the narrative of current global institutions.
VII. Functional Alternatives: Regional and Issue-Based Coalitions
The Global South is responding creatively.
Regional bodies such as the African Union have mediated conflicts in Sudan and Ethiopia more effectively than the UN. In West Africa, ECOWAS enforced democratic transition in Gambia. In Southeast Asia, ASEAN maintains dialogue and frameworks despite limitations.
Functional coalitions like the Global South Climate Alliance and the Global Methane Pledge reject the performative posturing of traditional climate diplomacy. During COVID-19, COVAX showed what distributed leadership could look like, had it been sufficiently empowered.
Legal and economic sovereignty are also advancing. Universal jurisdiction courts in Germany and Spain prosecute war crimes when the UN cannot. Major trade and development frameworks such as the African Continental Free Trade Area and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership circumvent the conditionality of the IMF and World Bank. The BRICS bank builds infrastructure as a soft power alternative.
These efforts reflect a new form of multilateralism. It is grounded in shared interests, not imposed values. It grows from historical context, not hegemonic assumption. It builds legitimacy by delivering results, not by inheriting authority.
VIII. Reform or Fade
Some argue that transformation within the UN is impossible. But change is already underway, with or without it.
Reform is possible. A credible agenda includes increasing permanent Council seats to include Africa, Latin America, and South Asia.
Reining in the veto with a supermajority override.
Empowering the General Assembly with limited binding authority in crises.
Protecting UN agency integrity by insulating them from donor-state coercion.
These are not radical proposals. They are steps toward legitimacy. Without them, the UN risks being bypassed in favour of forums where decisions are made not just more quickly, but more fairly.
The longer the UN resists reform, the more it invites irrelevance. Institutions that cannot evolve eventually cease to serve. The UN stands at that threshold.
IX. The Moment of Reckoning
The question is not only about power. It is about justice. Who gets to speak? Who gets to decide?
The UN was founded to save generations from war. But it was founded by victors, not by the world. Today, its logic feels obsolete. The détente era is over. New power dynamics demand new institutions.
Legitimacy cannot rest on the past. It must be earned in the present. A reformed UN could become that vehicle. An unreformed UN cannot.
Humanity, it seems, has not learnt from history. Time and again, we are drawn into cycles of conflict that fracture societies and fuel suffering. Rarely have wars served the common good. More often, they secure the interests of those who already wield power and control resources, while the masses bear the cost. What we have forgotten is that living together is not simply about coexistence. It is about shared goals, mutual prosperity, and sustaining a civil order where dignity is not a privilege, but a principle.
X. Closing Challenge
The message from Riyadh, Brasília, Pretoria, New Delhi, and Nairobi is clear. We will not be managed. We will manage. We will not merely observe global politics. We will shape it.
The rise of BRICS+, the empowerment of regional institutions, and the blossoming of multipolar cooperation is not a transition. It is a reckoning.
In a world of nearly eight billion people, it is no longer acceptable that five nations hold the keys to global justice. The UN stands at a crossroads. It must move toward transparency and equity. Otherwise, it will fade into irrelevance, a relic of a world that no longer exists.
This moment demands courage. It demands acknowledgement that a system created in the shadows of empire must now step into the light of equity. For the UN to be fit for purpose, it must stop defending its past and start designing a future where justice is not selective and representation is not symbolic. Only then can it truly serve humanity.
About the author: Farhad Omar is a cybersecurity professional, geopolitical analyst, and advocate for ethical governance. He writes on issues of global justice, multipolarity, and the intersection of power, policy, and equity.