Alarmed, Concerned, or Complicit?

The Pahalgam tragedy aftermath is seemingly turning into a major escalation between India & Pakistan. Sensing the dangerous fallout, secretary General of the United Nations (UN) Antonio Guterres said tensions between India and Pakistan are at the highest in years & the relationship has reached a ‘boiling point’; adds, ‘military confrontation can spin out of control’, calling for ‘restraint’. This lexicon of the UN in general and United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in particular in times of global crises is depressingly predictable:

They come out and say “We are alarmed by the situation,” “We express grave concern,” and occasionally, “We call for restraint.” But after decades of war, occupation, and mass human suffering in places like Gaza, Palestine, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, and elsewhere, a new term must now be added to this diplomatic chorus: Complicit. For the world’s so-called highest authority on peace and security, the UNSC has become a toothless tiger—declaring principles but defending none, issuing warnings but enforcing nothing.

The Illusion of Justice

Established in the aftermath of World War II to ensure that global conflict would never again consume humanity, the UNSC was supposed to be the guardian of international peace. Its Charter gives it the power to authorize interventions, impose sanctions, and refer crimes to the International Criminal Court. Yet, in practice, the Council functions less as a moral authority and more as a geopolitical chessboard dominated by the permanent five (P5): the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China.

Each of these five nations holds veto power—meaning any resolution, no matter how just or urgent, can be blocked if it does not align with their strategic interests. This structural flaw has made meaningful consensus nearly impossible, especially when the interests of the P5 collide, as they often do in the Middle East.

Nowhere is the impotence of the UNSC more evident than in Gaza. Since October 2023, Israel’s relentless military campaign in Gaza has killed tens of thousands, most of them civilians. Entire neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble. Hospitals have been bombed. Humanitarian aid has been blocked. The International Court of Justice has already found plausible grounds for genocide, and yet the UNSC remains paralyzed.

Why? Because each time a resolution calling for a ceasefire or accountability is brought forward, it is met with a predictable veto—most recently by the United States. This is despite overwhelming support from the rest of the world, including Global South nations, human rights organizations, and even UN agencies.

The Security Council’s inaction sends a chilling message: the lives of some people are expendable. When states with veto power are the backers or direct actors in violence, justice is not just delayed—it is denied.

This paralysis is not new. In 2003, the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq—a war launched without UN authorization—led to the deaths of over a million Iraqis and plunged the region into chaos. The UNSC watched as a sovereign nation was dismantled based on false claims of weapons of mass destruction. No sanctions were imposed on the aggressors. No accountability followed. Instead, the architects of war became authors of peace talks in other nations.

In Yemen, the world’s worst humanitarian crisis continues to unfold. The Saudi-led coalition, backed by Western arms and political support, has bombed schools, hospitals, weddings, and funerals. The UNSC has passed toothless resolutions, and international outrage has been absorbed by bureaucratic inertia. There has been no genuine effort to halt the arms flow, broker lasting peace, or hold war criminals accountable.

What connects these cases is not just the scale of destruction, but the pattern of indifference—especially when the perpetrators are powerful allies of P5 nations. The Security Council speaks in passive voice, issues calls for restraint, and then retreats into silence.

The structural imbalance of the UNSC makes it more a tool of empire than a guardian of equity. With five nations controlling its agenda, and over 190 others relegated to the role of passive observers, the system is rigged. The democratic aspirations of the United Nations are constantly undermined by realpolitik.

Moreover, the Council often sidelines regional voices. The African Union, Arab League, ASEAN, and even the Non-Aligned Movement are rarely consulted meaningfully in decisions that affect their regions. The result is a top-down, neocolonial system where those with the most to lose have the least say.

This disempowerment is not limited to war zones. Climate change, global pandemics, and economic injustice—issues that disproportionately affect the Global South—are rarely addressed through effective UNSC mechanisms. Security is defined narrowly, in military terms, rather than encompassing the broader realities of human survival and dignity.

When the UNSC fails to act, it does not merely remain neutral. It becomes complicit. Every veto that blocks humanitarian intervention, every resolution that is watered down to appease aggressors, every delay in condemnation while civilians die—these are not acts of diplomacy. They are acts of violence.

The Council’s inertia emboldens tyrants, legitimizes war crimes, and erodes faith in international law. If the global public sees that powerful nations can act with impunity while victims are ignored, it feeds a sense of hopelessness and distrust. It also radicalizes populations, as justice denied breeds extremism.

Many have called for reform: expanding the Council’s permanent membership to include nations from Africa, Latin America, and Asia; removing or limiting the veto power; increasing the role of the General Assembly in peacekeeping mandates. Yet these proposals have made little progress, precisely because those who benefit from the current structure have no incentive to change it.

Still, the pressure must continue. Civil society, regional blocs, and principled governments must push for alternative mechanisms. The UN General Assembly, where every nation has a vote, can become a more assertive forum. International courts can step in where the Council fails. Most importantly, public opinion must demand accountability—from governments, from global institutions, and from those who claim to speak in the name of peace.

If the UNSC cannot reform itself, its legitimacy will continue to erode. Already, grassroots movements, youth activists, humanitarian organizations, and even some state leaders are questioning the value of an institution that watches atrocities unfold with folded arms. The Global South is beginning to assert itself in new ways, calling out double standards and proposing multilateral alternatives.

The path forward must be rooted in moral courage. We need institutions that do not flinch in the face of power, that prioritize humanity over geopolitics, and that recognize every life as equal in worth. The world cannot afford to wait for the powerful to grow a conscience. Justice delayed is not just justice denied—it is complicity made official.

Conclusion

“Alarmed” and “concerned” are not policies. They are euphemisms for doing nothing. As Gaza burns, as Yemen starves, as refugees drown in the Mediterranean, and as millions remain dispossessed in Palestine, the world must move beyond words. The UNSC must either transform into a force for justice—or be recognized for what it is: a relic of a broken post-war order, incapable of serving a just and peaceful world.

Dr. Ashraf Zainabi, Teacher And Researcher