Even the Justice League Couldn't Rescue This UN

**NEW YORK** — Last week, I had the opportunity to attend two significant events: Baltimore Comic-Con and the annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly.

These events share common elements: superpowers and panel discussions; aspiring empires and conflicted leaders; Captain America and an American presence that often plays the leading role.

However, only one of these occasions left me feeling joyful and optimistic, and that was the gathering in Baltimore.

Contrastingly, the General Assembly meeting in New York filled me with considerable unease regarding the United Nations and what the absence of superheroes might mean for the world.

The U.N. has deteriorated to such an extent that despite ongoing calls for reform, I am beginning to doubt its ability to recover. This institutional decay is particularly alarming during a time when major powers seem to be siding with rival blocs, suggesting that a global conflict could be looming. At the center of the U.N.'s difficulties is the rivalry between the United States, China, and Russia.

While I understand that the U.N. has long faced challenges—topics of think tank discontent and proposed reforms for decades—the current situation has reached a critical point. Conversations with diplomats, analysts, and NGO representatives reveal a widespread sentiment that even as they dutifully participate in meetings and speeches, the efficacy of their actions is diminishing.

“You come to New York, and you kind of feel like you’re doing exactly the same thing we’ve done year after year after year, and it’s not only repetitive, but now it’s just not cutting through,” remarked an African diplomat.

A former U.S. ambassador was even more dismissive about the relevance of the U.N., asserting, “It’s a place for people to meet.”

The U.N. is tasked with upholding global peace and security, yet its most crucial entity, the U.N. Security Council, remains largely paralyzed due to the tensions among its permanent members, including the U.S., China, and Russia—all of whom hold veto power. Whether addressing external crises like Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas conflict or internal issues like the situation in Sudan, the council has struggled to take significant action. One speaker even likened it to a “zombie.”

“The truth is that the Security Council has systematically failed in relation to the capacity to put an end to the most dramatic conflicts that we face today: Sudan, Gaza, Ukraine,” stated U.N. Secretary General António Guterres in a recent interview with Al Jazeera.

This lack of action does not inspire hope in war-torn populations seeking humanitarian solutions amid wars, famines, and climate crises. Instead, it opens the door for more destructive forces to gain influence. In contrast, at Comic-Con, I found myself feeling optimistic about the triumph of good over evil.

What have U.N. diplomats presented as recent victories within the council? Instances when their resolution garnered more support than a competing proposal, even if neither resolution ultimately passed.

“There’s no tenable way the Security Council continues on for another decade or two decades this way,” observed a former U.N. diplomat.

As my colleague Robbie Gramer has noted, the infighting has increasingly disrupted matters that once would have been routine cooperation, such as enforcing sanctions against North Korea’s regime.

Other U.N. agencies, including those focused on refugees, health, and the environment, are also struggling to address current challenges. Their appeals for additional funding—particularly in light of the unprecedented number of people displaced globally—often go unheeded. The tragic deaths of over 220 U.N. staffers during the Gaza conflict have further diminished morale. Additionally, the possibility of Donald Trump returning to the U.S. presidency poses threats to U.N. funding.

Looking ahead, China's growing power may exacerbate U.N. gridlock. Beijing is seeking to secure roles within the U.N. that enable it to influence global regulations, which is causing concern in Washington.

Meanwhile, smaller nations are observing these larger power struggles with a mix of frustration and cynicism. They remember the months it took the Security Council to convene a meeting in response to the COVID-19 pandemic while their populations were suffering.

Critics often argue that blaming the U.N. for the failures of its member states is akin to blaming Madison Square Garden for the performance of the New York Knicks. However, if a basketball stadium's floor is uneven and the scoreboard is broken, why would teams continue to play there?

How much longer will the U.N. remain a venue for meetings?

Chinese leader Xi Jinping rarely attends the U.N. General Assembly's annual gatherings, while Russian President Vladimir Putin also often opts out—most likely, these days, to avoid arrest. In the previous year, out of the five permanent members of the Security Council, only U.S. President Joe Biden made an appearance.

In contrast, groups like the G7 or G20 see successful negotiations, suggesting that we might witness an increase in such forums while the U.N. fades further into obscurity. Side events during this week, including the Clinton Global Initiative, often garnered more attention than those taking place at U.N. headquarters.

On a positive note, Guterres and many leaders within the U.N. system, including those from the United States, are advocating for reforms. Their proposals were a significant part of this year's discussions, and while they may not generate headlines, they could prove critical in the long run.

Unfortunately, the process seems destined to exacerbate existing issues.

This past week, Guterres hosted the Summit of the Future, which concluded with a global pact aimed at reforming global governance mechanisms, including the Security Council. These negotiations were arduous and extended over several months, ultimately resulting in a nonbinding agreement.

None of the leaders of the Security Council's five permanent members attended the event to endorse it. In a last-minute development, Russia proposed an amendment that would have essentially weakened the agreement by stating that the United Nations would refrain from intervening in a nation’s internal affairs. Although the amendment did not pass, Russia made its point.

Furthermore, the United States recently unveiled its latest vision for Security Council reform, which includes the possibility of adding new permanent members to the council, which currently consists of 15 members. Specifically, the U.S. has acknowledged that Africa warrants two permanent seats.

Under this proposal, the new permanent members would not possess veto power, while existing members would retain theirs. So, what’s the point? There are also murmurs about likely disputes among African nations over who can secure those permanent seats, suggesting potential for significant intraregional conflict.

During my time at Comic-Con, I participated in panels discussing “world-building” and observed a check-in station manned by real police officers. Regrettably, a discussion on whether Godzilla could save humanity was canceled.

I encountered actor Daniel Kash, who played Private Spunkmeyer in the film Aliens. I asked him to compare Baltimore Comic-Con to the U.N. General Assembly. He paused for thought and then posed a question regarding the two events: “What’s more honest?”

As world leaders delivered their addresses at the General Assembly, I found myself reflecting on that question. Much of what occurred at the U.N. felt performative, as it often does.

And yet, these are the individuals wielding real power.

Ian Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News