If ever there was a time for the United Nations to show its utility, it would be when one member state was invaded by another and the rule-based international order, the cornerstone of the U.N. system, would appear threatened as a result.

Instead, the world body has been shaken, incapable of mustering action to protect a member, itself or the order that gives the institution meaning and purpose.

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida condemned the impotence of the world body and called for structural reform in remarks to the United Nations General Assembly earlier this week. He is not the first Japanese prime minister to make this case, but few have done so at a time of greater peril or urgency.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is right to warn that the “United Nations Charter and the ideals it represents are in jeopardy.” The “colossal global dysfunction” that he bemoaned in remarks to the annual opening of the General Assembly is the result of more than just the war in Ukraine. It encompasses the inflation that has been triggered and the global food crisis that has followed in its wake. It includes the inability to address climate change despite its intensifying and terrifying impacts. It is vast human migration triggered by man-made and natural causes. It is widening inequality that compounds the consequences of all other challenges.

None of these problems is unprecedented or unpredicted. We have watched them unfold. We have let them metastasize. Guterres’ conclusion is hard to wave away: “The international community is not ready or willing to tackle the big dramatic challenges of our age” even though they “threaten the very future of humanity and the fate of our planet.”

For Kishida and other reformers, a crucial first step is reform of the U.N. Security Council. That body, charged with providing a bulwark against international disorder, has instead been paralyzed by the power of its five permanent members. Their possession of a veto ensures that no action can be taken that challenges their interests as they define them.

Thus, today, Russia can and has blocked action that would stop its invasion of a sovereign state. Kishida warned that continued inaction in the face of blatant injustice “tramples on the vision and principles of the U.N. Charter” and “the credibility of the United Nations is at stake.” Worse, this wanton violation of international law threatens to unleash other governments who contemplate similar action elsewhere in the world. French President Emmanuel Macron was equally stark in his speech to the world body, warning that the world was close to an era of permanent conflict, “where sovereignty and security will be determined by force, by the size of armies.”

The stakes have only gotten higher following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s remarks this week that his country “would use all the instruments at its disposal to counter a threat against its territorial integrity,” a not-so-subtle reference to his readiness to use nuclear weapons if he felt a need to do so. This nuclear blackmail is utterly unacceptable.

It is completely predictable, however, in the aftermath of a failed invasion driven by self-serving readings of history and unhinged dreams of empire. It is enabled by the failure of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, which convened to no discernible effect last month. Kishida is the only Japanese prime minister to attend that meeting, and he blamed Russia for the inability of the group to even release a joint statement at its conclusion.

Nuclear issues are Kishida’s passion. That is understandable as his constituency includes Hiroshima where the first atomic bomb was dropped in World War II. In his August speech, he unveiled his “Hiroshima Action Plan,” an initiative that would reinforce the nuclear taboo, promote reductions in nuclear arsenals, increase the transparency of stockpiles of weapons and related materials and promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Speaking to the General Assembly this week, Kishida pledged to fight for “a world without nuclear weapons,” and “ensure that Nagasaki remains the last place to suffer an atomic bombing.”

Calls for U.N. reform typically focus on the Security Council. It has been proposed that its membership be expanded, that new permanent members be added or that the five permanent members be stripped of their veto. The procedural hurdles to any change are high: Revising the Charter needs ratification by a two-thirds majority of members, including all five permanent Security Council members.

Ultimately, hopes for reform have foundered for two simple reasons. Those with power refuse to give it up and those that seek more power are stymied by rivals who don’t wish to be disadvantaged in their bilateral competition.

For many, focus on the Security Council is misplaced. Attention is better put on the myriad institutions of the U.N. system that are working to address specific issues that impact the daily lives of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people around the world. While they are not immune to the geopolitical pressures — and frequent paralysis — that have captured the Security Council, that ground level work is far more likely to escape them.

That there are substantive obstacles to reform doesn’t mean that we must give up hope. Those who seek a world of equality, democracy and a world governed by rules must continue to insist on their vision of world order. Even if they don’t prevail today, they shape the debate and hold to international scrutiny those who prefer a world in which power determines outcomes. The ruthlessness of their proposed order must be exposed for what it is.

It will be frustrating but justice is rarely easy. After all, the United Nations was born in the rubble of World War II, which followed the first world war by less than two decades. It is a grim reminder of the stakes — and the possibilities.

The Japan Times Editorial Board