Selim Yenel (Rtd. ambassador) 18 April 2026 - Echoes of Failure: Is the United Nations Following the League of Nations?

 Selim Yenel (Rtd. ambassador)

18  April 2026

Echoes of Failure: Is the United Nations 

Following the League of Nations?

Once upon a time there was an international organization 

entrusted with an ambitious and noble mission: to foster 

cooperation and understanding among nations, to maintain 

peace and security, to promote friendly relations, and to 

advance social progress, human rights, and better standards 

of living. Yet it failed at the most fundamental test of all, 

preventing war among its members. Having lost its credibility, 

it gradually became irrelevant and slipped into obscurity. In its 

place, states reverted to alliances, rivalries, and power politics.

This is not a speculative warning from a future historian 

looking back at our time. It is a reminder of the fate of the 

League of Nations and of the catastrophe that followed its 

failure.

Today, one cannot escape the uneasy parallel. If the United 

Nations continues to be sidelined, it risks following the same 

trajectory as its predecessor. The UN has become trapped in 

the structural constraints of its own design: a Security Council 

paralysed by the veto power of major states, each able to 

block action when its own interests are at stake. As a result, 

the organization has repeatedly failed to act decisively in the 

face of major conflicts. It could not prevent Russia’s actions in 

Georgia in 2008, nor its annexation of Crimea in 2014, nor the 

full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. That war continues with 

no end in sight.

A similar paralysis is evident in the Middle East. The ongoing 

tensions involving Israel, Iran, and the United States risk 

escalating into a broader regional conflict. Yet the Security 

Council remains gridlocked, unable to move beyond 

statements and symbolic gestures. In such circumstances, the 

United Nations should not be reduced to silence. Even when 

formal decisions are blocked, there remains space for political 

initiative, mediation, and moral leadership.

Here, the role of the Secretary-General becomes critical. The 

office was never meant to be merely administrative; it carries 

an inherent political responsibility. Yet what we have seen is 

caution where urgency is required. The Secretary-General has 

not meaningfully inserted himself into active mediation efforts 

aimed at even a ceasefire, let alone a broader political 

settlement. Others, such as Pakistan, supported by a number 

of middle powers have stepped in to facilitate dialogue where 

the UN has hesitated.

To be sure, the United Nations has made significant 

contributions in development, humanitarian assistance, and 

norm-setting. But when measured against its primary 

mandate, peace and security, it has fallen short. Some may 

argue that today’s leaders, whether in Washington, Moscow, 

or elsewhere, are not inclined to listen. There is truth in that. 

Yet the United Nations was never meant to operate only when 

convenient. Its authority also rests on its moral standing, 

embodied in the voice and actions of the Secretary-General. 

That authority must be exercised, not merely invoked through 

carefully worded statements.

Diplomacy requires visibility, persistence, and risk. It means 

engaging publicly and privately, travelling to capitals, 

mobilizing coalitions, and shaping international opinion. It 

requires the Secretary-General to act not as a bystander but 

as an active political actor. Visiting Moscow once, at the 

outset of the invasion, cannot be considered sufficient 

engagement in a conflict of such magnitude and duration.

We are, increasingly, witnessing a return to an international 

system driven by hard power. As this trend deepens, 

international organizations risk becoming marginal. And the 

more they are sidelined, the more states will seek alternative 

mechanisms, ad hoc coalitions, regional alignments, or 

unilateral action to manage crises. This is a dangerous 

feedback loop.

The tragic irony is that many of these wars have proven futile 

in achieving their stated objectives, yet they persist. Years into 

the war in Ukraine, the human and economic costs continue 

to mount with no clear resolution. In the Middle East, 

escalation cycles repeat themselves with alarming regularity. If 

this pattern continues unchecked, we risk drifting back toward 

a 19th-century model of international relations one defined by 

spheres of influence, shifting alliances, and the absence of 

effective multilateral restraint.

This is precisely why middle powers have a critical role to play. 

If major powers are unwilling or unable to act responsibly 

within the existing system, others must step forward to defend 

it. However, this is easier said than done. The experience of 

the 1990s, particularly the collective response to Iraq’s 

invasion of Kuwait, was ultimately underpinned by clear 

leadership, above all from the United States. It was this 

leadership that enabled the formation and cohesion of a 

broad coalition.

The question today is therefore unavoidable: who can play 

such a role now? Middle powers, by definition, lack the weight 

of a superpower acting alone. Their strength lies in 

coordination, legitimacy, and collective action but this 

requires leadership, political will, and a readiness to assume 

risk. No obvious candidate has yet emerged to organize and 

sustain such an effort. Without a focal point for leadership, 

calls for collective action risk remaining rhetorical.

Consistency is also essential. It is not enough to condemn 

aggression selectively. The reluctance of many countries in the 

so-called Global South to condemn Russia reflects, in part, a 

broader dissatisfaction with perceived double standards, 

particularly in relation to Israel’s actions in Gaza. These 

perceptions, whether justified or not, weaken the possibility of 

building a unified response to violations of international law.

If there is no shared understanding of what constitutes 

aggression, if principles are applied unevenly depending on 

geography or political alignment, then the very foundation of 

collective security erodes. And without that foundation, 

neither the United Nations nor any alternative framework will 

be able to prevent or stop conflicts effectively.The lesson of 

history is clear: institutions do not fail overnight. 

They are gradually hollowed out by inaction, inconsistency, 

and loss of credibility. The League of Nations was not 

abandoned in a single moment; it was rendered irrelevant 

over time. The United Nations still has the capacity to avoid 

that fate, but only if it is used as it was intended: as an active 

instrument of peace, not a passive observer of conflict.