Roger-Luc Chayer (Image : Gay Globe & Meta AI)
There has been a lot of talk about the UN lately, but certainly not for the right reasons.
There was a time when the United Nations exercised real influence over world affairs, thanks to its committees, its Security Council, and the moral values to which all nations wanted and were supposed to adhere. But let’s face it: we are no longer at that point in 2025.
The UN in its early days
The United Nations, better known as the UN, was established in 1945, emerging from the aftermath of World War II, when the world, exhausted by conflict, desperately sought a way to prevent such chaos from happening again.
At its core, the idea was simple: to bring together almost all nations under one roof to discuss, negotiate, and above all, find common solutions to humanity’s great problems. From the outset, the UN aimed to be the guardian of peace and the promoter of a certain international morality, relying on diplomacy rather than force.
It settled in New York, symbolically looking toward the future, and quickly took on a host of missions, from war prevention to humanitarian aid, including the promotion of human rights.
During the Cold War, the UN often served as a stage where East and West exchanged more or less cordial speeches, without ever completely breaking off dialogue.
Is this international organization still relevant and necessary?
For such an organization—bringing together all nations, their political ideas, and religions—to function, consensus is needed. All parties must agree on basic principles and accept to abide by them.
The problem is that in 2025, it no longer works. Just look at the international situation to understand that the UN no longer has any power or means to impose its original ideals, due to the lack of consensus among many countries.
The war between Russia and Ukraine, the trade war led by the United States against the rest of the world, China’s ambitions on Taiwan, the reversal of DEI policies protecting LGBTQ+ communities despite being defended by the UN Charter, famine and war waged by Israel against Gaza, Hezbollah, the Bedouins of Syria, Iran, the plight of ethnic minorities in Myanmar, the collapse of the Republic of Haiti, the dictatorship imposed by El Salvador, the U.S. president who couldn’t care less about laws and international conventions…
In short, nothing works anymore, and the UN, apart from holding repeated emergency meetings, is no longer able to intervene. It no longer has the moral authority it once did, which allowed it, during several armed conflicts, to send peacekeepers to maintain peace, even by force if necessary. We are far from all that: who has heard of peacekeepers anywhere on the planet recently?
The Security Council: a hollow tool, paralyzed by an outdated veto concept
The Security Council, once a tool so powerful that everyone wanted to sit on it, is today only a shadow of what it was, rotted by an outdated veto right.
The Security Council is the UN’s decision-making core, theoretically holding the power to maintain international peace and security. It brings together a small group of countries entrusted with a particular responsibility: acting swiftly in the face of threats, authorizing peacekeeping missions, or imposing sanctions.
Equipped with the famous veto right, it rests on a fragile balance between great powers, which sometimes makes its decisions impossible. Since its creation, it embodies the idea that a restricted circle of nations can, through dialogue and negotiation, defuse crises before they escalate.
The Security Council includes five powers with veto rights (the United States, China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom), alongside ten elected members with temporary mandates. Around them, other states, chosen to represent various regions of the world, complete this restricted circle, but can never block a decision as permanent members can.
This frozen composition, inherited from the post-war era, still shapes balances today but often hinders action when the interests of some directly oppose those of others.
We observe that, in the current state of affairs, it is always the same permanent members, like China and Russia, who systematically block any Security Council decision or intervention. These blockages apparently serve only the political, economic, and military interests of these two nations, rather than acting in the interest of all humanity, as was originally intended.
An organization too heavy and costly to reform
Today, this empty shell that the UN has become is hardly useful anymore, and the speeches of its Secretary-General are no longer even broadcast by the media, as they are seen as a waste of time, without impact even internally. The UN’s “big boss” no longer has the possibility to dialogue with warring nations.
Based in New York, the UN operates in a political context where the President of the United States also has every interest in neutralizing this organization at all costs, even though it should be a model of democracy. Moreover, the UN is very expensive for its members.
The UN’s regular budget for 2024 was approved at 3.59 billion U.S. dollars. This budget covers the organization’s main activities such as political affairs, international justice, development cooperation, human rights, and humanitarian affairs. It represents an increase compared to 2023, which was about 3.4 billion dollars.
For 2025, a proposed budget of 3.6 billion dollars was presented by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, emphasizing investments in sustainable development, human rights, and humanitarian aid. However, the General Assembly finally approved a budget of 3.72 billion dollars, about 120 million more than the initial proposal.
It is important to note that these figures refer to the UN’s regular budget. Peacekeeping operations, humanitarian programs, and the activities of UN specialized agencies have separate budgets, funded by voluntary contributions from member states and other donors.
The UN’s main funders are primarily the world’s major economic powers, whose financial contributions make up most of the budget. Among them, the United States holds the largest share, followed closely by countries like China, Japan, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.
A slimming cure more than necessary
Under these circumstances, why not return to an assembly of nations, like before World War II, and seat it in Geneva, Switzerland, where a millennia-old democratic tradition could offer greater stability to the new organization? Above all, why not abolish the concept of permanent members with veto power, which acts like a dictatorship over global affairs? Perhaps we could better address global conflicts and ensure the peaceful well-being of humanity if all nations had a fair and equal right of oversight over international affairs.
The UN can theoretically revise its Charter, but the process is complex and requires broad consensus. Any amendment must first be proposed by the General Assembly or the Security Council, then approved by two-thirds of the General Assembly members.
Next, the amendments must be ratified by two-thirds of the member states, including all permanent members of the Security Council, as their consent is indispensable. This requirement makes revision particularly difficult, especially concerning sensitive issues like the veto right or the Security Council’s composition.
That is why, since the UN’s creation, the Charter has been amended very rarely, and deep reforms remain a major challenge for the organization.
What would the solution be then? The question is posed. You can leave your comments at the bottom of this article; your answers and suggestions will be public.
ADVERTISING
