If the world’s top diplomat—the UN general secretary only speaks without acting, what is the purpose of his office? The danger is not just irrelevance. It is the erosion of belief in multilateralism itself.
Every time violence escalates in the Middle East, one can predict the next move of the United Nations Secretary-General. He will step up to the microphone, issue a statement “strongly condemning” the bloodshed, call for restraint, and urge respect for international law. And then, silence follows. No action, no sanctions, no accountability—just words scattered across press releases and media headlines. For people watching from afar, particularly in conflict zones, this has become a source of deep frustration. They see a world body that once promised justice, equality, and peace, reduced to a platform for repetitive statements. The Secretary-General appears less like the leader of the world’s conscience and more like a mouthpiece of condemnations only. The problem, however, is not entirely personal. The Secretary-General does not wield executive authority. He is not a president of the world. His job is to represent the values of the United Nations, coordinate humanitarian work, and act as a mediator. When war crimes are alleged, or when states openly flout international law, he can raise his voice but cannot enforce punishment.
Real power in the UN lies with the Security Council, where five permanent members—United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, and France—hold veto power. Without their agreement, nothing binding can be passed. And when it comes to Israel, Washington’s veto has been almost automatic. Year after year, resolutions that call for accountability, sanctions, or even independent investigations are blocked. This leaves the Secretary-General in a helpless position. He cannot sanction Israel even if he wants to. He can only condemn, urge, and appeal. To people in Gaza, in refugee camps, or in war-torn regions, this looks like hypocrisy dressed in diplomatic language. The UN’s inability to act against Israel highlights the selective nature of its machinery. When Russia invaded Ukraine, a flurry of resolutions, sanctions, and global action followed in record time. When Iraq occupied Kuwait in 1990, the UN swiftly authorized military action. But when Israel is accused of bombing hospitals, flattening homes, or using disproportionate force, the system freezes.
This double standard is what fuels anger on the Arab street, in South Asia, and across the Global South. The UN appears less like a guardian of international law and more like a political stage where powerful states shield their allies and punish their enemies. In this drama, the Secretary-General is reduced to reading statements that everyone knows will change nothing.Over time, this cycle of condemnations without enforcement has eroded the UN’s credibility. For younger generations who grew up watching wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and now Gaza, the UN does not inspire faith. Instead, it appears as an outdated body trapped by the politics of 1945, unable to deliver justice in 2025. If the world’s top diplomat only speaks without acting, what is the purpose of his office? The danger is not just irrelevance. It is the erosion of belief in multilateralism itself. When people see that the UN cannot restrain the strong or protect the weak, they turn to unilateralism, regional power blocs, or armed struggle. The vacuum left by a powerless UN can be filled by chaos.
“The UN’s relevance is at stake, as it is seen as a platform for hollow condemnations rather than effective action. To regain credibility, it needs fundamental structural reform, including curtailing the misuse of veto power and empowering the General Assembly. The Secretary-General must either speak truth to power, even at the risk of his position, or resign to expose the UN’s institutional failings, preventing the organization from being viewed as merely a powerless mouthpiece.”
One argument is that the current UN Secretary-General—or any who follows—should resign in protest. Such a resignation would be symbolic but powerful. It would expose the hypocrisy of the system and remind the world that the UN, in its present form, cannot fulfill its mandate. A bold resignation would say more than a thousand condemnations. Yet, no Secretary-General has taken this path. Most remain within the comfort of diplomacy, issuing carefully worded statements while avoiding open confrontation with the Security Council’s permanent members. They become, by choice or by compulsion, a voice of moral appeals without political consequence. But resignation alone is not enough. The real crisis lies in the structure of the UN itself. The veto power, a relic of World War II, has become the biggest obstacle to justice. So long as the US continues to use it to shield Israel, no meaningful sanctions, peacekeeping operations, or accountability measures can move forward.
Calls for reform—expanding the Security Council, limiting the veto, or giving more power to the General Assembly—have circulated for decades. But reform is blocked by the very states that benefit from the current structure. This paralysis ensures that the Secretary-General remains trapped in the role of an observer, not an enforcer. There is also a moral question. By continuing in office and repeatedly condemning without consequence, does the Secretary-General become complicit in the very crimes he decries? When children die under rubble in Gaza, when families are displaced for generations, when entire neighborhoods are reduced to dust, what value do words have without follow-up action? At some point, silence and inaction become another form of complicity. This is why the frustration has grown. People no longer find comfort in statements of condemnation. They want action—sanctions, investigations, accountability, justice. And when that does not come, the anger shifts toward the UN itself.
If the UN wishes to survive as a relevant institution, it must break free from being merely a stage for condemnations. It needs structural reform that curtails the misuse of veto power, empowers the General Assembly to act when the Security Council fails, and strengthens the independence of international courts. Until then, the Secretary-General will remain stuck in his current role: a dignified voice of conscience, yes, but also a powerless figure whose condemnations echo in empty chambers. To ordinary people, that looks like betrayal. The world does not need another condemnation. It needs courage. Either the UN Secretary-General must risk his office to speak the full truth, even if it angers powerful states, or he should resign to expose the hollow structure he serves. Otherwise, history will remember him not as a champion of peace, but as a mouthpiece of condemnations only.
(The author is a teacher and a researcher based in Gowhar Pora Chadoora of Central Kashmir’s Budgam district. The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
Dr. Ashraf Zainabi
[email protected]
