The Paralysis of the United Nations: A Geopolitical Analysis on the Brink of World War III
GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS
By: Tri Lukman Hakim, S.H | Founder of KunciPro & Legal Analyst
Missiles detonating in the Middle East, tanks advancing across Eastern Europe, and naval blockades tightening in the Asia Pacific. The world is not okay.
We are currently in a state of high alert. The conflict between Iran and the United States is reaching a boiling point, with whispers of large-scale warfare being amplified across the globe.
The geopolitical stage is further heated by the dispute over Greenland between the US and Denmark, backed by NATO allies. Meanwhile, the crisis in Gaza between Palestine and Israel remains unresolved, leading to a drastic move by US President Donald Trump: the official formation of a counter-organization to the UN called the "Board of Peace," citing the United Nations' paralysis in handling inter-state conflicts, particularly in Gaza.
Many anxious netizens are asking: "Are we heading towards World War III?"
Mathematically speaking, we are moving in that direction. However, the timeline remains uncertain. Many nations are still calculating the catastrophic impact of a full-scale war.
We must realize that war brings devastation. If in the 1500s wars were fought with swords, spears, and arrows, in the 21st century, we face nuclear warheads and automated weaponry.
Islands that were once paradises could be obliterated in seconds. Famine, disease, and civilian casualties are inevitable parts of this equation.
Is the UN truly paralyzed, allowing wars to rage without resolution?
As a legal analyst observing systemic patterns, my answer may sound terrifying: The UN is merely a symbol of International Law. Its members are representatives of states with vested interests. If the UN truly wished to be neutral, its members should not be state delegates, but rather independent, neutral bodies.
1. The United Nations: A Paralyzed Giant
The United Nations (UN) was established post-World War II with one primary goal: To prevent World War III. Today, we are witnessing the total failure of that institution.
Why does the UN remain silent in the face of genocide and invasion? The answer lies in a congenital defect called the VETO POWER.
"How can we expect justice when the 'world police' (Permanent Members of the UN Security Council) are simultaneously the 'war criminals' holding a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card?"
When a superpower commits a violation, they simply raise a hand (Veto), and all international law is rendered null and void. This is not a court of justice; this is geopolitical theater.
Soekarno, the founding father of Indonesia, was a leader brave enough to withdraw from the UN and propose a rival organization, solely for the sake of justice.
If the very mother of International Law applies a system of absolute veto, how can the world ever achieve peace?
Human nature, at its core, is prone to greed. No war is started by mere sentiment; most wars are ignited by the greed for natural resources.
2. The Death of the Laws of War (Jus in Bello)
The Geneva Conventions dictate that even in war, there is ethics (Jus in Bello). Hospitals, journalists, and civilians are "Red Zones" that are strictly untouchable.
But look at today's headlines. Hospitals are targets, humanitarian aid is blockaded, and civilians are calculated merely as "Collateral Damage." When the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issues a ruling, it is treated as empty noise. The Law of the Jungle has returned: Might makes Right.
Let us imagine a scenario: The United States is found guilty by the International Court of Justice and sanctioned.
The question is: Who dares to enforce that sanction?
The answer is NO ONE. The International Court of Justice has no power against a superpower, unlike its authority over smaller nations.
Law is indeed always sharp downwards but blunt upwards, whether in the scale of society or the scale of nations.
3. Hybrid Warfare: The Invisible Weapon
The definition of conventional war is obsolete. Today's World War III is happening in your wallet and your smartphone.
- Economic Sanctions: Starving a nation without firing a single bullet.
- Cyber Warfare: State-sponsored hackers paralyzing the banking data and hospital systems of their enemies.
- Proxy War: Major powers do not fight directly but "hire" smaller nations or militia groups to kill each other.
These three types of warfare are deployed if nuclear weapons are not launched. However, if nations resort to nuclear exchange, it would sever electricity and the internet—effectively neutralizing the enemy's ability to use cyber warfare to cripple an economy.
Conclusion: Prepare an Umbrella Before the Missile Rain
This analysis is not meant to monger fear, but to awaken critical consciousness. We can no longer rely on a "Global Mechanism" that is already rusting.
For Indonesia, the "Free and Active" (Bebas Aktif) foreign policy is no longer just a slogan, but a survival strategy. Amidst rampaging elephants and a comatose legal system, we must become self-sufficient in food, energy, and logistics.
World War III is not coming. It is already here, disguised as inflation, energy crises, and the death of humanity.
But if armed conflict truly escalates, I wonder which side Indonesia will stand on, considering that "Free and Active" may no longer apply as long as we are choked by mounting foreign debt.
Source: This analysis is an English translation of an original op-ed by Tri Lukman Hakim S.H, published on the main journal. [Read Original Article in Indonesian]