The eighty years old United Nations is struggling to compete in an ever changing and collapsing World Order. This is remarkably similar to its predecessor, the League of Nations which failed following the start of the World War II. UN’s failure has nothing to do with its command structure, its mission or its authority.
Then why it is failing at a time when it is needed most?
Almost 80 years of its survival it witnessed power rivalries within its apex forum the Security Council (SC) and the United Nation General Assembly (UNGA). The UN was established by the US President Franklin D. Roosevelt as he understood that the interests of the US and its dollar depended on a new set of global order. The new structure was designed for a stable, law-abiding international system that was essential for the development of Capitalist market economy and the development of first world. In 1946, the Security Council’s intended purpose was to prevent great wars and it delivered this through numerous tensions and simmering Cold War.
After initial talks in San Francisco in April-June 1945, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) met first time from 10 January to 14 February 1946. The delegates from 51 countries met to discuss international cooperation, believing that they would be the main forum for resolving global issues and avoiding conflict. The UN was successful through the Bretton Woods system and its successors, leading to the European Union (through Treaty of Brussels 1948), NATO (1949) and the World Economic Forum (1971).
The year 2025, posted existentialist challenges to the UN systems. Most serious being uncertainties resulting by Trump’s second tenure and Vladimir Putin’s actions specially war in Ukraine. Resulting in greater military spending and reduced development aid, leading to heightened inequalities, climate degradation and an utter disregard of the international law. The conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, and Iran led to almost liquidity stress on UN humanitarian bodies as member including the US and China avoided or failed to pay their dues.
In March 2025, a UN press release stated that ‘only 75 of the 193 member states have paid their contributions. By September, only 66.2% of annual assessments had been collected. In 2026, the UN ran a deficit of billions of dollars. The sole super power, the US being the main defaulter, though responsible for 22% of the core (40% in 1946) and 26% of the peacekeeping budgets. China now supplies 20% of the main ( 6% in 1946) and 23% for peacekeeping. Rest of the member, despite having accumulated great wealth pay around 1% on both account.
The President Trump’s 8 January 2026 action to withdraw from 66 INGOs including 31 UN agencies proved to be the final nail in the coffin. It seriously affected UN’s ability to address issues like the climate degradation, global health risks, humanitarian disasters, AI related stress to name a few. The US decisions to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the World Health Organisation (WHO), has the potential to hamper progress on two of the biggest challenges of the 21st century.
The utter disregard to the international law by the founding members; Russia invading Ukraine (February 2022), and America’s capture of President Nicolás Maduro (2026), and Israel-America joint attack on Iran (February 2026) has created a very bad precedent.
How all this happened?
Probably the inherent issues of the UN structure particularly the vetoes by the SC permanent members, limit organization’s capacity to ending or limiting peace interventions. Interestingly, three of the five member have lost super power status. The UNSC has 10 non-permanent members, elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms, from around the world have little role in crucial issues. Historically, the Security Council is blamed for protecting US interests e.g. UNSC defended South Korea (1950), Kuwait (1991), East Timor (1999) and South Sudan (2011). It failed to timely address crisis in Kashmir, Bosnian, Rwanda and Gaza. Also, on US-Iran war UN appeared a helpless body with no will to act towards peace efforts. UN went into inertia and that led to a growing despondency in the the developing countries.
Question arises which organization can possibly replace the UN?
Of the many alternatives the most suited is the Non-Aligned Movement, established in the 1950s to protect the interests of developing countries. Its strategies comprised criticism of US, reform of the UN Security Council, self-determinations, and advocacy of sustainable development. It still continues to make raise its voice.
Another contender organization is the BRICS. This strange group began following dialogues between Russia, India and China and Brazil. Later South Africa joined making it a formidible group. Since then, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates have joined, with Argentina and Saudi Arabia invited to participate.
President Trump’s Board of Peace established by UN resolution in January 2026 specifically to keep peace in Gaza with 62 invited countries can emerge as a strong group.
The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (new Silk Road) launched in 2013, sees investment in the education, road, railway, automotive, real estate, power, construction and raw materials infrastructures of nearly 150 states across the Asia, Africa and Europe.
Ideally the UN should develop working relationship with other international organization bodies as OPEC, OIC, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) etc. with a view to revive the organization. This can start with a serious reassessment for a suitable model and working with the World Bank and other international donor agencies to add value to it. The UN should evolve greater financial sustainability, better institutional performance, and political strength to face challenges. It must not be allowed to wither.
It is very mature and capable organisation and it needs to adjust. But how?
The United Nations should remain updated and be able deliver peace and development where-ever required. Based of its past experience and institutional capabilities it needs to enhance its implementation mechanism and promote dialogue in the current “unordered world”. The UN can brings together all the states common goals and cherished values. As through World Health Organization (WHO) it was able to provide leadership during HIV, SARS, Ebola and COVID-19 pandemic channelizing a global response and supporting healthcare services in vulnerable regions. The UN’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) projects to improve literacy, technical training, education, advances science, media freedom, and regional and cultural history did great services to the World.
The bigger challenges like rising sea levels, over fishing, mining of the sea beds, reduction in polar ice caps and sea pollution require a coordinated response with its members, by the UN bodies.
Finally, it would be difficult to create a new organization as the 193 nations may never be able to reach agreements on the mission, structure, and the goals of a new entity. The multi-lateral cooperation is no more on the agenda of nation states. Further, no one will be willing to undertake lengthy processes of agreement through their national bodies. But the total collapse of UN will be very brutal and may lead to the dreaded Third World War.
