Dag Hammarskjöld, the United Nations’ second secretary-general, once offered what remains perhaps the clearest statement of the organisation’s purpose. The UN, he said, “was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell”. The remark reflected the hard lessons of the first half of the 20th century, when two world wars, genocide, imperial conquest and the horrors of the Holocaust and Hiroshima devastated much of the globe. The UN was never intended to create a perfect international order; it was designed to prevent the recurrence of such catastrophes. Eighty years after its founding, that mission looks increasingly precarious.

Armed conflicts are multiplying. Nuclear risks have returned to strategic calculations. International law is under pressure, while the Security Council, the world’s principal instrument of collective security, is frequently paralysed by the rival interests of its permanent members. When cooperation is most needed, faith in multilateralism is ebbing as great-power rivalry thrives. Against this backdrop, the race to succeed António Guterres, whose term ends in December 2026, has assumed unusual significance. The next secretary-general will inherit what has often been described as the “most impossible job” on Earth. Yet there are moments when impossible jobs matter most.

Erosion of collective security

The next UN chief will take office as the restraints that have helped contain international rivalry since 1945 visibly weaken. For all its shortcomings, the post-war order achieved something remarkable: It prevented World War III. Proxy wars, regional conflicts and repeated crises occurred, but direct military confrontation between the major powers was avoided. Colonial empires disappeared, dozens of new nations emerged, and institutions of international cooperation often prevented local conflicts from becoming global........

© Indian Express