The resolution taken by the UN General Assembly on the 18th of June on "arms flow to Myanmar" and the voting pattern of the members show why the UN is losing relevance in a bipolar world based - the West on one side and China-Russia on the other. While the US- Soviet Union Cold War was largely a two- country affair with protégés on both sides, this current era of hostility is different. There is a US led West on one side but the other side is manned by two very strong opponents, Russia and China. And it's not a mixed past that they share but the mixed present as well. And both have junked their socialism baggage.

Myanmar is one such area where the fight is taking shape.

The UN called on Myanmar's military to restore democratic rule appealed to UN member states to "prevent the flow of arms". Since the coup took place on February 1, the country, over 800 people have been killed in clashes with the military. If Myanmar is a bit quieter now, signs that it has spread outside Yangoon are clearly there.

Four members of ASEAN - Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand - also abstained from the vote, meaning that its closest neighbours are not even close to a common position on how to deal with the Myanmar situation. Meanwhile Suu- Kyi is being readied to stand trial on flimsy charges.

The UN resolution "calls upon the Myanmar armed forces to respect the will of the people as freely expressed by the results of the general election of 8 November 2020, to end the state of emergency, to respect all human rights of all the people of Myanmar and to allow the sustained democratic transition of Myanmar."

It also called for the release of President Win Myint, State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, and "all those who have been arbitrarily detained, charged or arrested". Some 4,880 people, according to the Thailand-based Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, are being held.

Who voted and how

A total of 119 countries voted in favor of the resolution. Thirty-six U.N. member-states abstained, and 37 were not present for the vote. Belarus was the only country that voted no.

China abstained from the vote, saying it opposes country-specific resolutions, and Russia also abstained, saying the resolution would not contribute to resolving the crisis in Myanmar.

While Western HR agencies have called the resolution significant, there are few signs that it matters to the ongoing civil war. "It sends[s] a message that there can be no business as usual with a military junta that murders its own people," said Simon Adams, of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect.

But the more sobering message came from the U.N. Special Envoy on Myanmar Christine Schraner Burgener who told the assembly that "the opportunity to reverse the military takeover [in Myanmar] is narrowing. The risk of a large-scale civil war is real" and warned that half the country's population could sink into poverty by 2022 if the violence continued.

While ASEAN is a critical player in the Myanmar scene, they didn't vote as one. Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand abstained from the vote, showing the division within it. Though the UN resolution also asked for implementation of the ASEAN resolution on Myanmar, ASEAN itself has not yet decided how it will act.

Bangladesh and the UN reality

In the last round of the Cold War, the UN was ineffectual when it came to being a catalyst for reduction of conflict and hostility. As signs go, the same is about to happen once more. But going by signals, this edition of the cold war has got a major military component. However, trade and technology elements are far more. The UN's influence on such issues is very limited. There are no good and bad sides in this war but another battle for supremacy. While socialism vs capitalism was also an ideological war, this one has no such burden on the shoulders and all are basically the same, economy-based states. It makes mounting any demonizing campaign difficult unlike the previous round. Both sides know it's about controlling the global market.

Bangladesh's encounter at a large scale with the UN has been on the Myanmar issue and it saw the UN"s collective inability to make a difference. This voting time around, it argued that it abstained from voting because the resolution had no mention of any solution on that Rohingya front. While that is a fact, this resolution had a different purpose. The missing mention of the Rohingya problem issue may have given it a good excuse to abstain.

Bangladesh depends on China for much of its Myanmar problems so if China abstains and criticizes it, Bangladesh will follow suit. It's obvious the UN can't help Bangladesh but China can so its priorities are clear. And that signals why the UN, largely toothless, is sinking in a world. Its significance is facing extinction metaphorically.