Shashi Tharoor, my former boss at the United Nations, was – and perhaps still is – a fiery defender of the United Nations. He was once asked by a BBC interviewer how did the UN feel about the “i” word, i for irrelevant? Mr. Tharoor, without missing a heartbeat, replied, “Oh, I think the ‘i’ word for us is actually ‘indispensable.’”

Five-year-old Omran Daqneesh. Photo: AP

Last month, the United Nations envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, walked out of an international humanitarian task force meeting in Geneva within minutes after it had opened. All major parties involved in the conflict were present, including the Russians and Americans, and their proxy fighters, the Assad regime and the “moderate” rebels fighting the government. After spending months and weeks talking to all sides on the need for a humanitarian pause so that urgently needed food aid could reach the people of the besieged towns of Madaya, Zabadani, Foah and Kafraya, the parties were still nowhere near an agreement. It made “no sense” to continue talking just for the sake of talking, he said, and walked out of the meeting.

The same day, August 18, an Associated Press photographer captured the image of a boy rescued from the rubbles of Aleppo. The city had suffered constant bombing from all sides, trapping nearly half a million people in death throes. The latest bombing, by all indications, was by the Russians, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. The boy – his name we later learned is Omran Daqneesh – was placed on an orange chair, his face and hair dusty and bloodied, his eyes dazed. He was completely silent, not even a teardrop in his eyes. Within hours, the photo went viral, making him the new poster boy of humanity’s collective failure to stand by the neediest.

As it happens, the UN has been begging the warring parties and their patrons for a 48-hour humanitarian pause, but the UN’s big honchos, the five permanent members of the Security Council, on whose shoulders the world placed the heavy burden of maintaining international peace and security, just could not agree on how to proceed. On August 22, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Stephen O’Brien, met face to face with the “gang of five” and looked straight into their eyes.

“I’m not going to pretend – I’m angry, very angry,” he said referring to the carnage in Syria for the last five years. “This callous carnage that is Syria has long since moved from the cynical to the sinful,” he said. Looking bleary and sounding hoarse, the UN Under-secretary-General begged, “So please: now is the moment, this instant, to put differences aside, come together as one, and stop this humanitarian shame upon us all, once and for all.”

There was pin drop silence in the Council chamber, long faces of the world’s powerful cast downward. Meanwhile, thousands of miles away in Aleppo and other cities in Syria, bombs continued to drop.

So why is it that the UN cannot do anything about the slow strangulation of an entire nation? As a former UN staff member, I am quite familiar with the stock answer. “This is the responsibility of member states. The world should hold them accountable.”

There is logic to this answer. Sure, the UN is the sum total of its member states, but how can we not recognise that their failure to carry out their solemn commitment to “peace and international security” is actually the failure of the United Nations? When the organisation’s key members fail to perform their duties year after year, the relevance of the organisation itself comes into question. There is no two-ways about it.

Time and again, the UN has found itself on the wrong side of history. Nearly 50 years ago, in 1971, Bangladesh faced a similar annihilation at the hands of an occupying army. For nine months, the Security Council failed to meet – not even once – due to disagreements among its key members. Finally, when Bangladesh – with the help of the Indian army – was on the verge of winning its freedom, the Security Council woke up from its slumber to stop Bangladesh’s march to freedom. The big honchos spent several futile days and nights, negotiating a ceasefire. Neither Bangladesh nor India heeded to their maneuverings, and thirteen days later, on December 16, Bangladesh was finally free. Five days later, the Security Council managed to adopt a resolution calling for a durable ceasefire. By then, of course, all guns had fallen silent. The resulting laughter could be heard even in charred villages in Bangladesh, thousands of miles away.

Then Secretary-General U Thant memorably captured his own frustrations in getting the big league boys to act on a humanitarian crisis. In his memoirs, View from the UN, he wrote: “Throughout the struggle, the United Nations had made no move to act; my pleas and warnings to the Security Council, both privately and publicly, fell on deaf ears. The Council was immobilised, both by the refusal of the parties directly involved (India and Pakistan) and by the major powers, to face up to their obligations under the Charter to confront the issues forthrightly.”

Throughout 1971, the UN’s principal preoccupation was to encourage Bangladeshi refugees to return home, although there was no guarantee of their security. When in June, a correspondent asked U Thant why the UN had not come to grips with the real problem of Bangladesh, and instead had dealt only with peripheral humanitarian problems, the Secretary-General stammered to acknowledge that the entire episode was “a very terrible blot on the page of human history.”

That was not the last time the UN was left watching people die. The Bangladesh genocide was followed by similar carnages in Cambodia, the Balkans and Rwanda. Unable to get its “gang of five” to agree on political action, the UN has increasingly turned its attention to humanitarian and emergency assistance. Useful work no doubt, but that only makes the UN an expanded – and more glorified – International Red Cross. Since the Red Cross does not have to deal with political prima donnas, it could be more effective, only if it could be equipped with more resources. Why, it could even replace a hobbled United Nations!

As for the question whether the UN is “irrelevant” or “indispensable”, go ask young Omran and hundreds of thousands of Syrians like him. I have no doubt what the answer would be.

The writer is a journalist and author based in New York.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

When I first saw the news flash scrolling at the bottom of my TV screen, my first thought was, please God, not another Muslim!

With Donald Trump waging his own “jihad” against Muslims – all Muslims, including those who are American – I was hoping that the shooter was from another religion, any religion but Islam. My hope turned into a nightmare when the shooter was confirmed not only to be a Muslim, but someone who was born in New York and had gone to US schools. Omar Mateen was just a regular guy, it seems, who wore a bandana, loved taking selfies, dated a Pakistani woman, and even occasionally visited the same gay night club where he unleashed his vengeance. He may have been a closeted gay.

Photo: AFP

There could be a thousand theories to explain what motivated this “homegrown” terrorist to decide one night to gather all his guns and embark on a personal vendetta against a group of people he thought was different and deserved punishment. At the end of the night, his decision to play God left nearly 50 people dead and another 50 or so gravely wounded, and turned every Muslim in the US a marked person. Dana Milbank at the Washington Post has publicly wondered, how long would it be before American Muslims are forced to wear yellow badges featuring the star and crescent?

Donald Trump had already used his “Muslim card” to romp through the Republican primaries and to snatch the party nomination for president. Be fearful of Muslims, he had warned, while demanding a total ban on Muslims entering the US. Now, after Orlando, he is self-congratulating saying, ‘I told you so’.

Like it or not, this “Muslim card” is winning, as Trump’s words are echoing with many Americans. Six months ago, after the San Bernadino shooting carried out by another “homegrown terrorist” and his Pakistani wife, Trump cheerfully explained why he loved these mass shootings. “Whenever there’s a tragedy, my numbers go way up,” Mr. Trump gloated.

This time, he has amped up his attacks on Muslims, and even implicated President Obama, another “Muslim” in his estimation, for enabling such a massacre by refusing to condemn “radical Islam” as the real culprit behind all terror attacks. To many Trump supporters, Obama’s argument that terrorists use a perverted version of Islam to advance their political cause sounds hollow. “Look, he was a Muslim,” they now say, pointing to Mateen’s last minute declaration of allegiance to the so-called Islamic State.

“I told you so,” Trump smiles and gloats.

The wounds are still fresh and many of the dead have not yet been laid to rest, but he is already out there to collect a few extra votes.

Some opinion leaders have tried to redirect the conversation, focusing instead on the need for gun control. In the US, mass shootings – in which at least four people are killed or wounded – take place almost on a daily basis. In 2015, according to a Shooting Tracker Data, there were as many as 372 mass shootings in the US, killing 475 and wounding 1,870. That makes it more than one mass shooting per day throughout the year.

Mateen – who was known to FBI for his radical views – acquired his cache of guns legally. In any other country, in the aftermath of such a mass murder, the obvious action would be to impose stricter gun control, making sure that guns don’t fall into the hands of any deranged person, such as Mateen. Although there is strong support within the country for “common sense gun control”, the gun lobby is too strong and the politicians in Washington, in the view of The New York Times, “too cowardly.” So nothing happens, except for an occasional call for vigilance and prayer.

President Obama and some of his Democratic allies have tried for some common sense gun control measures. He tried again three days ago, after the Orlando shooting. “The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub,” he told a stunned nation.

Appearing exhausted and even resigned, he somberly said, “We have to decide if that’s the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.”

Clearly, Americans have already chosen the kind of country they want for themselves. They want to remain armed to the teeth. Bearing arms is a sacred right and an expression of their free will, guaranteed by an amendment to the Constitution.

“My numbers go up, way up,” winks Trump and many people clap.

Meanwhile, there has been an outpouring of emotions and expressions of solidarity all across America, beyond all social and cultural boundaries.

While there is no reason for any Muslim to own this dastardly act, it is important that they publicly condemn Mateen and others like him. After all, these attacks are carried out by people who claim to be Muslims and do so in the name of Islam. The Islamic State, for example, quickly claimed responsibility for the Orlando massacre. No sensible and self-respecting Muslim should allow a group of perverts to hijack their religion. Now more than ever before, they must – with every fibre of their being – condemn such mindless killings.

Unfortunately, no leaders of the Muslim world have risen. Not in one Muslim country has there been a public demonstration of protest or solidarity. Yet, the massacre was committed in the name of their religion.

We may now deny but Omar Mateen was our son, growing up in a Muslim family that sympathised with the Taliban. It is also entirely possible that Omar was bipolar and needed help. Shouldn’t the family and members of his own community have been the first to notice this and come together to aid him?

Clearly, they did not do their part.

The time to act is now. We must not allow the self-proclaimed Islamic State and its ideology to enter stealthily into our homes and turn our children into monsters. We cannot and we must not.

The writer is an author and journalist based in New York.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh