sözaltı news Politics
Politics
EN AZ
Middle powers can’t be bystanders as the UN falters

Middle powers can’t be bystanders as the UN falters

politico.eu 23.09.2026 12:34 6 views
Finland and Australia are seeking Security Council seats with a message: The rules-based order needs countries willing to fight for it.

Many people look at the state of today’s world and wonder if the United Nations has failed in its promise. Some question whether it can still rise to meet the moment and if we should be searching for solutions elsewhere. It is understandable, but it is dangerous and misguided.

To paraphrase Dag Hammarskjöld, U.N. secretary-general from 1953 to 1961, the U.N. may not have brought us to heaven, but it has — so far — saved us from hell. For more than 80 years, the U.N. has underpinned humanity’s progress. At its best, the international organization mobilizes global responses to major global challenges, preventing conflict, responding to crises and working to eradicate poverty, address climate change and biodiversity loss, and promote health and human rights.

U.N. personnel and peacekeepers work to alleviate suffering and support progress, often in difficult circumstances and at great personal risk. For countries like Finland and Australia, and the vast majority of member countries, the United Nations remains indispensable. It is the only global forum where all states have a voice, regardless of their size, their military capability or their economy.

Over decades, the U.N. system has built an architecture of rules and standards. Most of us rarely think about it when it is working — but would notice failures quickly. It governs the systems that enable modern life; the phones that connect us, planes that land safely, the mail that crosses borders, the accurate weather forecasts that help farmers who grow our food, the interventions to contain disease and the safeguards that help keep nuclear catastrophe at bay.

The U.N. brings tangible progress across the globe. Without it, our world would be more brutal, less safe and poorer. It would be harder for nations to assert their sovereignty; coercion and interference would become the norm.

Conflict would be more likely, as diplomacy and dialogue would give way to aggression. We know these dangers are not hypothetical, because we have witnessed the decline in stability as multilateralism and international law have come under increasing pressure. We are already living through the most violent conflicts since World War II, and civilians are bearing the brunt.

Extract — continue reading at the source.

Read full story