On the 24th of October, 1945, in San Francisco, California, a new international organization was formed to replace the incompetent and weak League of Nations that had formed 25 years prior. This organization would be known as the United Nations, and it primarily became the responsible and competent international organization the world needed after two world wars. Or so it seems. Though the UN is indeed more competent than its predecessor, there are still questions left unanswered:ill it be the just arbitrator of the world, or be nothing more than a weak bystander, just like what its predecessor was reduced to?

The birth of the United Nations has dramatically changed international politics and diplomacy. For one, regardless of the wealth, size, or how populated a country is, all member states of the organization get an equal vote and get represented equally in the General Assembly. Which changes, at least nominally, the situation when world powers dominated international politics according to their wishes. Furthermore, some of the resolutions it passes are now legally binding, and enforceable to all its member states, which is a massive progress from the weak days of the League of Nations.

However, if we uncover the grim truth, it does not look too ideal. Although it states that all member states have an equal say on all matters, in reality, it is the few wealthy and powerful member states that dominate the General Assembly. With their wealth and power, world powers like America, China, and Russia influence, sway, and lobby other member-states for support. Support that they are able to get almost all the time.
Which brings a lot of questions to its supposed “equality”. Secondly, although the UN looks better than the League of Nations in that it can legally bind some of its resolutions, again, the truth is grim. Of all the resolutions, the resolutions from one certain branch, the UN Security Council, is legally binding.

Thus, out of the six main organs, and many other sub-branches of the UN, only a resolution from only one of them will be guaranteed full implementation from (most of) the international community. What's worse is how the Security Council is organized. The UN Security Council is organized into five permanent member states; America, China, The Russian Federation, The United Kingdom, and France. These five permanent member states, along with the ten non-permanent ten member states that serve for two year terms make up the security council. It is also worth noting that these five permanent member states also have the right to veto any action proposed to the council. These five countries, all very wealthy and influential both inside and outside the UN, get to practically “rule over” the UN's most powerful branch, while simultaneously also influencing many of the General Assembly as well. Which turns the UN to a mere stage, where these five countries, and other powerful countries compete one another for the complete dominance of this “Oligarchy” from the others. While the ideals of the UN lie forgotten for political conflicts and squabbles. For all its ideals and visions, the UN is practically an oligarchy for the dominant powers of the world.

The UN is the most well-known international organization around the world, and from 1945, it has indeed done many things that did benefit the international community. From its humanitarian health efforts from the WHO, to the humanitarian work done by UNICEF, and several of its peacebuilding efforts that have actually succeeded, the UN isn't “completely useless”, like some of its extreme critics say about it. However, the UN`s dependency on world powers, and the control these powers have over the said organization may bring it to its downfall to incompetency. As the world powers again begin to take sides, and slowly ready themselves for another potential conflict like the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War, the UN must tread carefully, otherwise, their future does not look too bright.