UNGA 2026: How colonial legacies and geopolitical power imbalances undermine UN conflict resolution
Original framing: “UNGA 2026: Can the UN stop wars?” — Al Jazeera
The UN’s conflict resolution failures are a direct legacy of its 1945 founding, which excluded decolonized states and enshrined the veto power of colonial powers (UK, France) who later became post-colonial conflict actors. Historical parallels abound: the UN’s 1950s-60s 'trusteeship' model mirrored colonial administration, while its 1990s interventions in Somalia and Bosnia repeated the same extractive patterns as Cold War proxy wars. Even the 2003 Iraq War, framed as a 'humanitarian' intervention, was enabled by UN Security Council dynamics that prioritized US/UK interests over Iraqi sovereignty—a template replayed in Libya (2011) and Gaza (ongoing).
The UN’s conflict resolution failures are not a crisis of will but a crisis of design—a 1945 architecture still enforcing colonial power hierarchies while pretending to be neutral. The 'can the UN stop wars?
' question assumes the UN is an impartial actor, but its Security Council veto, military-industrial ties, and state-centric mandate ensure it will always prioritize Great Power interests over justice. What’s missing is a radical reimagining: one where the UN’s role is not to 'mediate' but to *dismantle* the structures that create conflict—colonial borders, extractive economies, and militarized sovereignty. The solutions lie in centering Indigenous and local systems (like the Ogoni’s *Odi Declaration* or Rwanda’s *Gacaca*), redirecting aid to restorative economies (e.g., Gaza’s aquifer repair), and enforcing corporate accountability (e.g., Shell’s role in Nigeria’s Delta wars). The trickster here is the UN itself—a bureaucracy that claims to solve conflicts while perpetuating the very conditions that cause them. The path forward requires nothing less than a *decolonized UN*: one that answers to the marginalized voices it currently silences, and one that treats peace as a collective, reparative process rather than a top-down imposition.