---

Discussion

Ann Tofado:

It is fair if we mean the Security Council’s ability to stop a war or impose a settlement when powerful governments reject pressure. It is misleading as a judgment on the entire UN system. Haiti shows the difference: UN agencies can deliver assistance, political missions can support institutions and the Council can create sanctions or authorize missions. But none of those tools can manufacture a legitimate government or the political agreement needed to sustain security.

Red Velhouse:

Sofia, what does the legal structure allow the UN to do—and where does it stop?

Sofia Jadler:

The key distinction is between the General Assembly and the Security Council. The Assembly generally makes recommendations on peace and security. Its votes can demonstrate support and raise political costs, but they do not normally compel a state to stop fighting or impose sanctions. The Council is different. Under Article 25 of the Charter, members agree to carry out its decisions. It can establish sanctions and authorize missions. But substantive action must pass through the five permanent members—the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom—and any one can veto it. Even a Council decision is not a self-executing police operation. States must provide troops, money, access and compliance.

Sam Dewinski:

That veto was the price of bringing the great powers into one institution after the Second World War. It reassured them that the organization could not easily coerce one of their own. The same safeguard becomes a trapdoor beneath collective security: when the permanent powers agree, the machinery can be formidable; when one is being judged, it can stall at the moment it is most needed.

Red Velhouse:

Let’s test that against Ukraine and Gaza. Where did international support fail to become Council action?

Ann Tofado:

Ukraine is the clearest example. On February 25, 2022, eleven Council members supported a draft demanding that Russia stop using force and withdraw. Russia vetoed it. The next day, the General Assembly condemned Russia’s aggression by 141 votes to 5, with 35 abstentions. That created a powerful diplomatic record, but it could not order Russia out of Ukraine.

Sofia Jadler:

Gaza shows that veto paralysis is not limited to one bloc. In November 2024, the United States cast the only negative vote on a draft demanding an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire. Earlier, the United States vetoed another ceasefire draft, while Russia and China vetoed a United States-sponsored text referring to an immediate and sustained ceasefire. The arguments differed. The legal result was the same: none became a Council decision.

Ann Tofado:

The General Assembly’s Gaza ceasefire resolution passed by 153 votes to 10, with 23 abstentions. That gave governments, mediators and humanitarian agencies a common reference point and raised reputational costs. But it did not establish that governments would impose costs on a party that refused. The Assembly can mobilize pressure; it cannot substitute its recommendation for Council enforcement.

Sofia Jadler:

The “Uniting for Peace” procedure makes that boundary explicit. When the Council is blocked, the Assembly can convene an emergency special session and recommend collective measures. It changes the forum and creates a public record. It does not erase the veto, create a UN army or automatically authorize coercive action. It is a political workaround, not a replacement for Council enforcement.

Red Velhouse:

And when the Council does act, why can resolutions still sit on paper while events move in the opposite direction?

Sofia Jadler:

Because legal force and implementation are separate questions. Resolution 2728, adopted in March 2024 with the United States abstaining, demanded a Gaza ceasefire, hostage release and expanded humanitarian access. Fighting continued. That does not prove the resolution had no effect, but it does show that the UN had no agreed operation capable of compelling compliance. Troops, money, logistics, intelligence, access and sanctions enforcement come from member states. A legally significant decision can therefore coexist with inadequate implementation.

Sam Dewinski:

Syria supplies a similar warning. In 2017, Russia vetoed renewal of the UN-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism on chemical-weapons use. That weakened the international system’s ability to identify perpetrators and pursue accountability. The episode is a reminder that even a specialized investigative mechanism can depend on Security Council consent—and that a veto can remove capacity without settling the underlying dispute.

Red Velhouse:

Haiti is where those limits become concrete. Ann, what has the UN actually done there, and what has it been unable to do?

Ann Tofado:

The UN system has delivered substantial assistance. The World Food Programme reported reaching 2.7 million people in Haiti during 2025. The United Nations Children’s Fund, or UNICEF, reported treating more than 46,000 children under five for severe acute malnutrition, providing cash assistance to 18,000 households and psychosocial support to more than 200,000 children. BINUH, the United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti, has supported political dialogue, monitored human rights and assisted police and electoral institutions. Yet roughly six million people still required assistance, and the humanitarian plan was severely underfunded. Those outputs mattered, but they did not resolve the political economy of violence.

Sofia Jadler:

BINUH is a special political mission, not a peacekeeping force. It provides good offices, supports dialogue, monitors rights and assists Haitian institutions, but has no independent military force. The Council renewed its mandate through January 2027. The sanctions regime illustrates the implementation problem: the Council created targeted arms restrictions, travel bans and asset freezes, but a 2025 Panel of Experts found that freezes and bans were not effectively enforced and that limited port control impeded the arms embargo. The instrument existed; the enforcement network was weak.

Red Velhouse:

The Council also authorized an international security mission. Why did that not settle the crisis?

Ann Tofado:

In 2023, the Council authorized a Kenya-led Multinational Security Support mission to help Haitian authorities restore security and create conditions for elections. It was authorized under Chapter VII, but it was not a UN-commanded peacekeeping operation. Its costs depended on voluntary contributions. Deployment was delayed until June 2024, and by November just over 400 personnel had deployed against an envisaged strength of about 2,500. The political compromise produced authorization without reliable capacity.

Sam Dewinski:

Members also disagreed about what kind of action Haiti could legitimately receive. Haiti and several partners supported converting the mission into a better-funded UN peacekeeping operation. China argued that Haiti lacked the conditions for peacekeeping, while Russia warned against using peacekeepers to fight urban crime or compensate for a dysfunctional state. The compromise created a Gang Suppression Force and requested a UN Support Office in Haiti. The UN could provide logistics, but member states still had to deploy the force, and Haitian institutions still had to govern.

Ann Tofado:

That is selective paralysis rather than total paralysis. Haiti shows operational usefulness alongside strategic failure: assistance was coordinated, institutions supported, sanctions created and security assistance enabled. But effective state control, civilian protection at the required scale and a stable political settlement remained out of reach. The obstacles were political as much as logistical—voluntary financing, limited troop contributions, weak Haitian capacity, contested sovereignty and disagreement over the mission’s role.

Sam Dewinski:

The historical record also warns against treating an international mission as a substitute for durable national institutions. Haiti’s United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, known as MINUSTAH, and the United Nations Mission for Justice Support in Haiti, known as MINUJUSTH, supported police, justice, corrections and electoral institutions. But Haiti did not emerge with durable security or stable democratic governance. The cholera epidemic associated with peacekeepers became a major legitimacy and accountability failure; the Secretary-General apologized in 2016. An international presence can build capacity while also creating dependency, resentment or serious harm.

Red Velhouse:

So where should we look for success—not just mandates and frameworks?

Sam Dewinski:

The strongest evidence in this record is not that the UN can impose a settlement. It is that sustained cooperation can produce practical gains: humanitarian delivery, institutional support, political coordination and logistical infrastructure. Those gains depend on local actors, regional diplomacy and outside resources. History’s broader lesson is that peace operations work best when the objective is shared, the parties accept a political process and the means are credible. The UN can amplify those conditions; it cannot manufacture them by decree.

Ann Tofado:

That also clarifies the reform debate. African governments’ demand for permanent Security Council seats addresses representation and legitimacy. It could improve whose interests shape decisions, but it would not automatically solve financing, enforcement, sovereignty or local-consent problems. Reform is difficult because a Charter amendment requires approval by two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of UN members, including all five existing permanent members.

Red Velhouse:

After this General Assembly, what is the fairest verdict on the claim that the UN is “mostly useless”?

Sam Dewinski:

It is too broad for the UN as a whole and substantially defensible as a narrower claim: the Security Council is often unable to deliver collective security when powerful states disagree. The UN has humanitarian agencies, diplomatic forums, peacekeeping and a Council capable of binding decisions. But it was designed to preserve great-power participation, not to overrule great powers or replace national political institutions. Its performance depends on whether political cooperation and practical capacity are available.

Sofia Jadler:

The most precise conclusion is that the UN has three kinds of power. It can express international opinion through the Assembly. It can create legally significant decisions through the Council. And it can produce results only when states provide enforcement, funding, access and political cooperation. Haiti demonstrates all three: concern was expressed, sanctions and missions were authorized, and aid and logistics were delivered. The missing element was not always legal authority; it was the capacity and agreement to turn authority into sustained implementation.

Red Velhouse:

The record supports neither “the UN solves everything” nor “the UN does nothing.” It supports selective paralysis: the organization can coordinate aid, support institutions, create legal frameworks and authorize action, but outcomes depend on political will, resources, access and local capacity. Watch Haiti’s sanctions enforcement, the Gang Suppression Force’s deployment, humanitarian funding, civilian-protection reporting and electoral milestones. Also watch Security Council vetoes, implementation of resolution 2728, and movement on African representation. The UN is neither uniformly effective nor simply powerless. Its mandates matter, but mandates alone do not change events. Sources and references for this discussion are available with the episode at Factolio.com.

---

Sources and References

These sources supported the factual material used in this discussion. Factolio’s panel discussion is AI-generated from researched evidence and is written in original language.

1. Associated Press — We’re in this together, Earth’s leaders told each other at the UN. But how does that work, exactly? (NEWS)
2. World Food Programme — Haiti emergency (PRIMARY)
3. UNICEF Haiti — Snapshot of key results for 2025 (PRIMARY)
4. UNICEF Haiti — Humanitarian Situation Report No. 2, February 2025 (PRIMARY)
5. UNICEF Haiti — Humanitarian Situation Report No. 8, December 2025 (PRIMARY)
6. UNICEF Haiti — Japan and UNICEF Commit to Strengthening Healthcare and Safe Water for Crisis-Affected Populations in Haiti (PRIMARY)
7. United Nations — Statement on the end of the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Haiti and the start of BINUH (PRIMARY)
8. United Nations Security Council — Resolution 2476 establishing BINUH (PRIMARY)
9. United Nations — Report of the Secretary-General on BINUH, June 2025 (PRIMARY)
10. United Nations — Report of the Secretary-General on BINUH, 2026 (PRIMARY)
11. United Nations Security Council — Security Council resolution 2814 renewing BINUH (PRIMARY)
12. United Nations Security Council — Security Council establishes Haiti sanctions regime through resolution 2653 (PRIMARY)
13. Security Council Report — UN Documents for Haiti: Security Council Resolutions (ANALYSIS)
14. United Nations Security Council — Report of the Panel of Experts on Haiti sanctions (PRIMARY)
15. United Nations Security Council — Security Council authorizes Multinational Security Support Mission for Haiti (PRIMARY)
16. Security Council Report — Haiti, September 2025 Monthly Forecast (ANALYSIS)
17. United Nations Security Council — Security Council briefing on Haiti, November 20, 2024 (PRIMARY)
18. United Nations Security Council — Security Council debates Haiti’s request to transform Kenyan-led mission into UN peacekeeping operation (PRIMARY)
19. United Nations Security Council — Security Council extends authorization for Kenya-led security support mission in Haiti (PRIMARY)
20. Security Council Report — UN Documents for Haiti: Security Council Resolutions, including resolutions 2793 and 2794 (ANALYSIS)
21. United Nations — Establishment of the United Nations Support Office in Haiti (PRIMARY)
22. United Nations — Secretary-General apologizes for United Nations role in Haiti cholera epidemic (PRIMARY)
23. United Nations Security Council — Security Council briefing on Haiti, November 20, 2024 (PRIMARY)
24. UN Peacekeeping — MINUJUSTH completes its mandate, ending 15 consecutive years of peacekeeping in Haiti (PRIMARY)