Every year on 21 September, the United Nations (UN) invites the world to observe the International Day of Peace. The UN’s General Assembly established this day in 1981, and in 2001, it unanimously voted to designate 21 September as a day of non-violence and ceasefire.

This year’s focus is on “cultivating a culture of peace”. According to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, this means “replacing division, disempowerment and despair with justice, equality  and hope for all”. This day takes us back to 1945, when the UN was formed with the primary objective of promoting international peace, cooperation and security, and developing friendly relations among nations. The establishment of the UN has achieved significant success in various areas; however, the organisation’s peace objectives continue to face several challenges.

Peace is under attack and geopolitical tensions are on the rise, undermining the objectives of the UN. This 79^th anniversary of the UN has become a poignant reminder of the enduring gap between the ideals enshrined in the UN Charter and the current state of global affairs. It is believed that the UN is at its weakest, as it faces numerous challenges in maintaining international peace and security. A significant factor contributing to this situation is the increasingly fragmented nature of global geopolitics.

In recent years, we have witnessed a resurgence of nationalism and protectionism, with countries both large and small prioritising their interests over collective security and the common good. This trend not only undermines the effectiveness of multilateral institutions like the UN, but also exacerbates tensions among states, leading to a more contentious international climate.

Powerful nations have constantly undermined the UN, acting unilaterally and in exclusive alliances as they pursue strategic interests that fail to take into account the broader implications for global peace and stability. From Gaza and Sudan to Ukraine and beyond, we see these ‘unholy’ alliances among states. The interventions by powerful states in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine, for instance, reflect the prioritisation of national security concerns over humanitarian needs. These persistent conflicts are evidence of the intersection of domestic and international interests, with global powers supporting factions that align with their geopolitical goals rather than those that promote sustainable peace.

In addition, smaller nations frequently find themselves caught in the crossfire of rivalries between larger powers, struggling to assert their sovereignty and pursue their aspirations in a world where economic and military might often dictate foreign relations. Accordingly, the voices of these nations are dimmed in international discourse, further weakening the UN’s ability to function as a true platform for cooperative security.

Therefore, the 79^th anniversary of the UN serves as both a celebration of its achievements and as an opportunity for a critical reflection on its challenges. The current global landscape is marred by might over right, self-interest among states and a decline in multilateralism, and highlights the need for a renewed commitment to the principles of the UN Charter. Without a collective re-evaluation of priorities and a shift towards genuine cooperation, the prospects of achieving lasting peace will remain severely diminished.

This year also marks the 25^th anniversary of the General Assembly’s adoption of the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace. In that declaration, the UN recognised that peace “is not only the absence of conflict, but also requires a positive, dynamic participatory process where dialogue is encouraged and conflicts are solved in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation”.

In a world of rising geopolitical tensions and protracted conflicts, there has never been a better time to recall how the UN General Assembly came together in 1999 to set out the values needed for a culture of peace. These include respect for life, human rights and fundamental freedoms; the promotion of non-violence through education, dialogue and cooperation; a commitment to the peaceful settlement of conflicts; and adhering to freedom, justice, democracy, tolerance, solidarity, cooperation, pluralism, cultural diversity, dialogue and understanding at all levels of society and among nations. The wars in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine demonstrate a total abandonment of these values.

In follow-up resolutions, the General Assembly recognised the importance of choosing negotiations over confrontation, and of working together and not against one another. The Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation starts with the notion that “wars begin in the minds of men, so it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed”. This idea served as the basis for the theme and logo for the International Day of Peace celebration this year. This year’s theme emphasises how the ideas of peace and the culture of peace need to be cultivated in the minds of children and communities through formal and informal education, across countries and generations. While this year's theme reminds us of a better world, the aspiration of world peace under the UN remains a dream.

The International Day of Peace has always been a time to lay down weapons and observe ceasefires. However, the wars in Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza dulls this hope, and are an indication of how far the world has moved away from the values of peace and non-violence. Yet amid the challenges and hopelessness, we all have a role to play. This is a time for people to see each other’s humanity. Our survival as a global community depends on that. Peace is the ultimate prize for all humanity.

This International Day of Peace reminds us that the solutions are in our hands. We cannot be silent or indifferent in the midst of conflict and violence. History will judge those who choose the path of silence and indifference amid these wars. 

By Tendai Mbanje, a project officer in the Expression, Information and Digital Rights Unit, Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Pretoria.