By Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai
“80 years. Longer than the average human lifespan. Normally this would be a moment to celebrate but are we really in a mood for celebration. Instead of celebrating, one might rather ask: where is the United Nations, which was created to save us from hell? Where is the United Nations as conflicts spread, as our planet burns, as human rights are trampled? Our answer must be clear: We are not giving up. We are here. We see you…The world needs the United Nations. In no way would we be better off without it…Yes, our world is in pain. Indeed. But imagine how much more pain there would be without the United Nations,” these are the opening remarks of Ms. Annalena Baerbock after assuming the presidency of 80th session of the UN General Assembly on September 9, 2025. Ms. Annalena Baerbock is an internationally known diplomat who served as Germany’s Minster of Foreign Affairs between 2021 to 2025.
António Guterres, the Secretary General of the UN echoed the same sentiments on September 12, 2025 when he said, “Eighty years ago, the United Nations emerged from the ashes of war to pursue the cause of peace. That mission is the beating heart of our Organization. But today, peace is under siege. Conflicts are multiplying. Civilians are suffering. Human rights and international law are being trampled — leaving scenes that disgrace our common humanity…Even in a fractured world, we can come together to let peace ring. Let’s answer that call.
I concur with both the President of the General Assembly and the Secretary General of the United Nations that, despite achieving certain successes, the United Nations has failed humanity. And because of the shortage of time, I will share only a few striking examples.
If we were to judge the UN based upon its history of involvement in efforts to resolve international conflicts, the simplest answer is that it has been an enormous failure. Specifically, if we consider the fact that its fundamental mission in being created was to be a means of preventing global catastrophes like the Second World War, then conflict resolution would have to be considered Job One.
Counted among the greatest failures of the UN is Srebrenica, a town in eastern Bosnia only ten miles from the border of Serbia, which came under attack by the Serbs in July 1995 during the Bosnian war. Although U.S. and British officials knew several weeks in advance that the Serbs intended not only to attack the village but also intended to separate all the men and boys from women and children and kill them, they did nothing to protect them. UN forces were not reinforced. No plan to evacuate them was made. The official policy was to allow the Serbs to take the town because it had been surrounded by Serb forces and was considered indefensible, despite being guaranteed as a “safe zone” by the UN. More than 8,000 men and boys were slaughtered in a matter of days.
In 1994, a far worse genocide occurred in Rwanda when close to a million Tutsis were slaughtered by Hutus. The UN knew that this was going to occur in advance and yet allowed massive genocide to occur and did not block it. As an article in the Telegraph points out, ‘A 1999 inquiry found that the UN ignored evidence that the genocide was planned and refused to act once it had started. More than 2,500 UN peacekeepers were withdrawn after the murder of ten Belgian soldiers. In one case, the peacekeeping forces deserted a school where Tutsis were taking shelter – hundreds of people inside were immediately massacred.”
The most glaring example of the failure of the United Nations is Gaza, where innocent lives continue to be lost every single day. Despite countless resolutions and impassioned debates, the international community has been unable—or unwilling—to take meaningful action to stop the bloodshed. The shocking ineffectiveness of the organization not only defies explanation but also undermines the very principles on which it was founded. Gaza stands today as a tragic reminder that when the UN fails to uphold justice and protect the vulnerable, its credibility and relevance are called into question.
In context, Kashmir cannot be brushed aside, perhaps for no other reason than the conflict there has gone on for 78 years and seems destined to continue as long as the Indian armed forces continue to occupy the region. Dr. Gregory Stanton, Chairman, Genocide Watch warned in January 2022 that there are early signs and processes of genocide in Kashmir. Of course, the Indian government continues to ignore such calls, because it believes that such ruthless tactics are the only way to deal with opposition to its policies. Such policies are almost a guarantee that yet another great tragedy in the UN’s history will occur.
It is undeniable that in matters of international conflict resolution, that can only imply the involvement of a third-party mediator. Most importantly, without a third party’s impartial diligence in pursuing a settlement, breakdowns in lines of communication or other disputes that may arise will inevitably create barriers to resolution, and the process will fail. The side in the dispute which offers initiatives will always be seen as weak when both are out rattling their sabres; hence no progress can be made.
We believe that Ms. Annalena Baerbock as the President of General Assembly can persuade India and Pakistan to go back on their position in respect to the UN. Alternatively, she can suggest to both neighboring countries to simply agree that some other neutral party which perhaps professionally engages in conflict resolution might work between the two countries, creating an unbroken line of communication between them so that differences can in fact be resolved. That is what President Donald Trump has suggested multiple times that he was willing to mediate between India and Pakistan to help resolve the Kashmir conflict.
It would be the task of such an independent agency or a personality of an international stature to review solutions to the dispute which have garnered some attention and agreement in the past and to propose steps that would bring Pakistan and India together on points of alignment, with the full inclusion of the Kashmiris themselves. Since the future of Kashmir is at stake, it is vitally important that its own interests, however varied among Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and others, be a party to any discussions that are to take place.
It is clear that resolving this dispute requires a careful evaluation of its many points of contention and addressing them one by one in a carefully drawn-out process in which coming to an agreement on each sets the stage for moving on to the next. The most basic set of principles must be established and adhered to regarding human rights, the interests of the Kashmiris themselves, and the preservation of vital interests that both India and Pakistan have at stake, and then to proceed with steps toward objectives that result in a win-win solution for all.
We truly believe in the sincerity of the fascinating and inspiring words of Ms. Annalena Baerbock when she said at the UN General Assembly, “I will be impartial, a bridge builder, guided by only one thing – our United Nations Charter. It will be my North Star.” However, when economically powerful countries such as India object to such impartial positions, they often lobby and exert pressure to ensure that others refrain from adhering fully to the principles of the UN Charter.
An example of this can be seen in the statement of Ms. Baerbock she made on October 9, 2022: “Germany also has a role and responsibility with regard to the situation in Kashmir. Therefore, we support intensively the engagement of the United Nations, to find peaceful resolutions in the region.” Yet, shortly thereafter, under evident pressure from India, the German Foreign Office issued a clarification: “There has been no change in our position. Together with the European Union, Germany believes that it is for India and Pakistan to find a peaceful solution to the conflict through direct dialogue. At the same time, Germany supports efforts of the UN to monitor the situation on the ground.”
This sequence demonstrates the unfortunate influence of political and economic pressures, which risks undermining the very impartiality and principled leadership that Ms. Baerbock pledged to uphold under the UN Charter.”
While bilateral talks in theory are the path to resolution, in practice they have repeatedly failed without international facilitation or at least quiet support. Germany’s suggestion is diplomatically cautious, but realistically, bilateralism alone is unlikely to produce a final resolution unless both sides shift positions significantly. I believe that leaving Kashmir to be resolved bilaterally between India and Pakistan risks giving India de facto veto power, thereby obstructing a fair resolution.
India and Pakistan have had more than 150 official rounds of talks in the last seven and half decades to discuss Kashmir conflict between them. The by-product of every round of talk was an agreement to meet again to talk. In consequence, the peace process between India and Pakistan has always remained an illusion. We believe that the missing element is sustained and coordinated diplomatic pressure by peace-loving democratic powers, including the United States and Germany. If the world powers do not deem it prudent to get directly involved, there is no reason why the Security Council of the United Nations or, with the Council’s support, the Secretary General should not be urged to play a real facilitating role.
We trust that the personal involvement of Ms. Annalena Baerbock in this matter will bring its influence to bear on both India and Pakistan to initiate a peaceful negotiation with which the United Nations as well as the genuine leadership of the people of Jammu & Kashmir will be associated so as to ensure that settlement arrived at will be based on the principles of justice.
Dr. Fai is also the Secretary General, World Kashmir Awareness Forum.
He can be reached at: WhatsApp: 1-202-607-6435. Or. gnfai2003@yahoo.com
www.kashmirawareness.org
