Peace at what cost?

SEPT 21 is well known because of the song by Earth, Wind and Fire. And just like May 4 (Star Wars Day), Sept 21 has now become ingrained in pop culture.

But lest we forget, Sept 21 is also the International Day of Peace. Also known as World Peace Day, it was inaugurated by the United Nations in 1981 and is observed annually to promote global peace, non-violence and ceasefires.

This year, the UN marked the International Day of Peace under the theme “Invest in Peace – For Everyone, Everywhere, Every Day.” Secretary-general Antonio Guterres asked leaders to choose diplomacy over destruction and praised “everyday architects of peace.” The words were familiar. The timing was unpleasant.

While New York hosted ceremonies and hashtags, fighting continued in Gaza, Ukraine and Iran.

The same Security Council that should keep the peace is stuck because the very powers that crea­ted it keep using vetoes. The day of peace has become a reminder of how much the superpowers have taken the institution for granted.

The theme itself is fine. Peace is more than no gunfire; it needs investment in mediation rebuil­ding and the rule of law.

The problem is that the permanent members treat those investments as optional, using them only when they do not clash with their interests.

In Gaza, a ceasefire announced in October 2025 and later endorsed by the Council, has not produced peace. Israeli operations and restrictions continue. Buildings still collapse on families. Humanitarian agencies report that Palestinians remain compressed into shrinking areas, with aid far short of need and reconstruction stalled. The United States, having pushed its own plan through the Council, now watches implementation limp along.

Ukraine is entering its fifth year of conflict. Russian forces still advance in some sectors and still rain drones on cities while Moscow vetoes any resolution that would constrain it.

The Council’s job is to stop wars, not to host an annual commemoration of one that it cannot end. The United Nations appears to be as useful as a rubber stamp. Nothing more.

Iran is the newest demonstration of irrelevance. Joint US-Israeli strikes that began in late February 2026 were neither authorised nor meaningfully constrained by the Council. Subsequent exchanges, tanker incidents, and civilian casualties have produced reports and fact-finding missions, none of which have stopped the fighting.

Sure, the ongoing United Nations General Assembly will host world leaders who will call for the end to conflicts in different parts of the world. But we have heard these speeches before. The United Nations is reduced to a stage for speeches, not a forum that decides anything.

This is not accidental. The Charter gave five victors of World War II a permanent veto, and they use it. The United States shields Israel. Russia shields itself. China calculates. France and Britain protest when convenient.

Funding follows the same logic: arrears, threats of withdrawal and demands for reform that never include the veto. The organisation is kept solvent enough to run refugee camps and climate conferences, but not independent enough to constrain the Big Five.

Guterres admitted as much in an interview with Al Jazeera ­published on Monday. The UN chief, whose mandate ends on Dec 31, said the involvement of “superpowers” and key council members in the wars has created a crisis due to the continued violations of international law.

He said the state of the world “is getting worse” as wars multiply and become more complex, war­ning that growing geopolitical divides have paralysed the Security Council and leave the most vulnerable “in very dra­matic situations”.

“That creates an environment of impunity, in which midsize powers believe that they can do whatever they want because nothing will happen to them,” Guterres said.

His successor, who is yet to be named, will take charge of an organisation that is grappling with multiple crises and is, in Guterres’ opinion, in dire need of reforms to stay relevant and important on the global stage.

Critics of the United Nations often stop at “it is broken”. That is too kind. It is working as designed for the states that matter. They get legitimacy when they want it, paralysis when they do not, and a convenient scapegoat when civilians die. Ordinary people in Gaza, Kharkiv or Hormozgan do not get a veto. They get another Interna­tio­nal Day of Peace.

Investing in peace would mean ending the veto on mass-casualty conflicts and treating Council resolutions as obligations rather than menus. None of that is on this year’s agenda. The speeches will be delivered, the theme will be tweeted, and the wars will continue.

The hypocrisy is not that the United Nations observes the day. It is that the powers that created it still pretend the observation alone is sufficient.