From Guardians to Bystanders: How the World Normalised Tragedy

The present geopolitical scenario is witnessing overlapping crises that have created a profound sense of instability and unpredictability around the world. In this evolving global landscape, the chilling pattern of conflict, violence, displacement, death has become a recurring background condition of world politics which are no longer treated as exceptional failures to be urgently fixed. The human suffering across the globe have ceased to be shocking ruptures in the international order and instead have become routine, almost expected features of daily headlines. What once provoked urgent calls for peace or intervention now unfolds with a numbing regularity. 

The bombardments in Gaza where entire neighbourhoods are reduced to rubble and families are forced into cycles of displacement, no longer dominate headlines beyond the first shock of escalation. In Sudan, the unfolding of the most severe humanitarian 

emergencies of the era with the displacement of millions and the spread of famine are treated as just another crisis atop a list already crowded with emergencies elsewhere. Yemen is marked by more than a decade of relentless conflict, suffering and deprivation as it continues to be trapped in a cycle of widespread hunger and decaying infrastructure, yet the sense of urgency has long evaporated. In Myanmar, the military junta has waged brutal campaigns against its own people which have rendered repression, forced displacement, human rights abuses creating an environment where suffering and flight are grimly accepted as everyday life. In Ukraine, the relentless reality of trench warfare, missile attacks, and mounting civilian casualties persists, yet it no longer commands the same level of global attention and urgency that it once did. Across Africa, from the Sahel to the Great Lakes, conflict and displacement persist in silence, rarely piercing the global conscience. In North Korea, where chronic food insecurity meets nuclear brinkmanship, the humanitarian plight of ordinary people is eclipsed by the theatrics of geopolitics. Even within the United States, gun violence and mass shootings unfold with such regularity that they barely disrupt the rhythm of political debate, mirroring the numbness often seen in responses to global crises. 

Though each crisis arises from its own history and context, they are increasingly absorbed into a global pattern of normalized violence and suffering. In this day and age, we have entered a world in which tragedy has become routine, thousands displaced are reduced to numbers on a page, the destruction of schools, hospitals, and homes is summarized in bullet points, and civilian deaths are dismissed as mere “collateral damage.” In this environment, humanitarian appeals compete not with genuine compassion but with political indifference of great powers, short attention spans, and the relentless churn of new crises that crowd out the old. This global desensitisation not only erodes empathy but also signals the steady collapse of our collective will to act.

Amidst this landscape of recurring suffering, global institutions which were once envisioned as guardians of peace, humanitarian norms, and collective security are faltering and failing to reverse this trend of tragedies. The establishment of the United Nations, Bretton Wood institutions, and humanitarian organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross were founded to provide order, stability, and a framework for cooperation in a turbulent world. However, these institutions are suffering with a crisis of legitimacy as they continuously fail to prevent large scale wars and global chaos. Their inability to prevent conflicts, respond promptly to humanitarian catastrophes or address deepening inequalities have led to a significant disconnect between global expectations and institutional delivery. The erosion of trust is not the result of a single failure but of structural weaknesses aggravated by chronic financial shortfalls, political meddling, and the grim acceptance of persistent global violence rendering them incapable of preventing or mitigating the suffering of millions. 

Understanding why these institutions fail requires looking beyond public perception to the underlying structural, political, and operational barriers that constrain their ability to act effectively. These barriers create an environment where the potential for meaningful intervention is consistently undermined, leaving institutions unable to fully meet the demands placed upon them. Even when they hold formal authority, decisive action is often prevented by the following factors: 

1. Bureaucratic Inertia 

Global institutions operate under complex rules, treaties, and administrative procedures. This makes rapid adaptation difficult. For example, UN peacekeeping or IMF reforms often take years to implement due to internal approvals and consensus requirements, leaving them slow to respond in crises. 

2. Resource Limitations 

Many institutions depend on voluntary contributions, earmarked funding, or member state financing. This constrains independent action. The WHO, for instance, often struggles to act quickly in low- income countries because of reliance on donor priorities. 

3. Power Asymmetries 

Decision making is often dominated by powerful countries as smaller states have limited influence, and reform proposals can be blocked by major powers. This makes the institutions heavily politicized and reduces their ability to act neutrally or decisively.

4. Slow Consensus Processes 

Most multilateral decisions require consensus among dozens of countries with divergent priorities. Climate agreements and major financial reforms illustrate how slow consensus- building delays action on urgent issues. 

5. Enforcement Gaps 

Many global bodies can issue recommendations or resolutions but cannot enforce them. The UN can pass Security Council resolutions but enforcement depends on member states. Similarly, the WHO can advise but cannot compel national health policies, limiting impact. 

6. Overly Broad Mandates 

Institutions are tasked with multiple goals that stretch resources and expertise. The UN manages peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, and development simultaneously, while the IMF monitors global financial stability and provides loans. This diffusion of responsibility weakens effectiveness. 

7. Chronic Political Meddling 

Domestic and international political pressures influence institutional priorities. Leaders may prioritize donor preferences or geopolitical agendas over urgent needs, reducing independence and responsiveness. 

The cumulative effect of persistent institutional failures has led to a profound erosion of trust in global governance mechanisms as public expectation for decisive action is increasingly met with systematic discrepancies between mandate and performance. The paralysis of the United Nations Security Council is perhaps the clearest example as despite its central responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, the Council has been unable to pass binding resolutions in crises ranging from Gaza to Myanmar, largely due to the entrenched veto powers of its permanent members. Over the past decade, 27 out of 30 vetoes cast on prolonged conflicts specifically in Palestine, Syria, and Ukraine have obstructed opportunities for ceasefires, peacekeeping initiatives and humanitarian intervention. In Gaza alone, the United States has vetoed six separate resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire and the lifting of aid restrictions, even as civilian casualties mounted and humanitarian conditions deteriorated. Such obstruction not only prevents the Council from fulfilling its mandate but also undermines the legitimacy of the very system intended to uphold international law and protect vulnerable populations.

The failures extend beyond the paralysis of decision making to the chronic underfunding of humanitarian responses. In Yemen, a decade of relentless conflict has been compounded by cuts in international aid, leaving millions dependent on dwindling food and medical assistance. In Sudan, the humanitarian situation is equally dire as the country faced a crisis of unprecedented scale and complexity in 2024, with more than 8.5 million people displaced internally. Despite the severity of the crisis, the humanitarian response remains strikingly inadequate with only a fraction of the required resources mobilized to address the needs of the affected populations. This gap between the scale of human suffering and the level of international response highlights how donor fatigue and competing geopolitical priorities systematically weaken the ability of institutions to alleviate crises. 

Furthermore, the United Nations as a whole is itself facing an acute financial crisis that further erodes its operational capacity. In 2025, the organization launched an appeal for $47 billion to assist approximately 190 million people across 32 countries. So far, only 43 percent of that target has been fulfilled. Looking ahead, the UN is set to endure a $500 million cut to its core budget in 2026 largely due to sharp reductions in US contributions leading to projected 20 percent job losses among its 35,000 workforce. These shortfalls come at a time when demand for UN intervention is greater than ever, producing a paradox in which institutional responsibilities expand even as resources contract. The net effect is a pervasive sense of paralysis and incapacity that undermines confidence in their ability to address pressing global challenges. 

The unceasing humanitarian catastrophes across the globe has revealed not only the depth of global suffering but also the extent of institutional failure in responding to it. What once would have mobilized urgent international action has instead become background noise to the world’s political rhythms, absorbed into a pattern of desensitisation. The global institutions established to act as stabilizing forces, capable of mobilizing resources, mediating disputes, and coordinating collective responses are suffering from decades of structural weaknesses, chronic underfunding, and political meddling which have eroded both their legitimacy and their operational capacity. 

The public expectation of decisive and principled action collides with a pattern of delayed, diluted, and absent responses, declining faith in multilateralism as a model of cooperation. If left unaddressed, the erosion of trust in global institutions risks hardening into permanent disillusionment. Such a trajectory would weaken not only the mechanisms of humanitarian response but also the normative foundations of international order, such as human rights, accountability, and collective security. The fractured world order demands a reassertion of dialogue, empathy, and problem-solving

across cultures and borders. In an age where conflicts are simultaneously local and global, the task for the next generation is to bridge divides, rebuild trust in institutions, and humanize politics in the face of escalating dehumanization. Most importantly, every humanitarian crisis involves human lives and normalizing suffering strips away empathy and turns people into statistics.

Manisha Shrivastava is a GPIU Fellow at the Sixteenth Council