"United Nations Organisation has failed in its objective of maintaining international peace and security." Describe with example.

The Charter promise and the veto design

• Chapter VII lets the Council decide on sanctions and force; five permanent members can each block that decision.
• The veto was the price of great-power membership in 1945; it is also the machine that turns a great-power war of interest into UN silence.

Examples that support the statement

• Syria’s civil war: repeated Russian (and sometimes Chinese) vetoes blocked binding coercion while hundreds of thousands died and refugees remade Europe and the neighbourhood — collective security in name.
• Ukraine, 2022: the Council could not condemn or reverse a permanent member’s invasion; the General Assembly voted, which is opinion, not Chapter VII force.
• Gaza after 2023: ceasefire drafts met veto or abstention politics while humanitarian law was the public language of a war the Council could not stop.
• Rwanda 1994 and Srebrenica 1995: peacekeepers were present and still failed to stop genocide and massacre; mandate and will, not only veto, failed the purpose.
• Iraq 2003: a major war proceeded without a second Council authorisation, which taught that powerful members may exit the Charter when they wish.

Examples that qualify the statement

• Korea 1950 (in the Soviet boycott window), Namibia’s independence, Cambodia’s Paris process, Timor-Leste, and Sierra Leone show peacekeeping and special political missions that did close conflicts.
• Uniting for Peace (resolution 377, 1950) and General Assembly emergency sessions are imperfect substitutes when the Council is locked.
• Sanctions regimes, nuclear non-proliferation monitoring, and humanitarian corridors are partial public goods the UN still supplies between the failures.

Critical description

• The UN fails its first purpose whenever a P-5 interest or a thin mandate meets mass violence — Syria, Ukraine, Rwanda, and several Middle East wars are the teaching examples.
• It does not follow that the Organisation has no peace function: it fails as a policeman of the strong and still works as a table, a witness, and a peacekeeper of the poorly armed.
• Reform talk — G4, text-based Council expansion, veto restraint in mass-atrocity cases — is the policy answer to the examples, not abolition of the only universal security table.