UN: from the dream of world peace to a giant paralyzed by interests

When the United Nations was founded in 1945, the world was emerging from the worst war in human history. Its mission was clear: to prevent another global catastrophe, promote human rights, and ensure cooperation among states so that the ambitions of a few would never again cost millions of lives.

The international pact was a beacon of hope. The Security Council, the General Assembly, and its many agencies were presented as tools meant to protect humanity. At that time, the UN did serve a purpose: it was a diplomatic space where major powers could negotiate before going to war, a forum that legitimized agreements, and a shield that protected smaller nations from stronger ones.

Today, however, one unavoidable question looms: Does the UN still serve any purpose?

An organization trapped in its own structure

The main criticism centers on the Security Council, the core decision-making body on issues of peace and international security. There, five countries,the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France,retain the privilege of the veto. A single "no" is enough to block any resolution, even if the vast majority of nations support it.

This structure, designed in the aftermath of World War II, no longer reflects today’s reality. The conflicts of the 21st century,from Ukraine to Gaza, or Sudan to Yemen,have exposed the UN’s total paralysis when any of the permanent members have interests at stake. India and other emerging nations have been blunt: the Council is “archaic” and “ineffective.”

Resolutions no one follows

The General Assembly adopts symbolic resolutions, but without enforcement mechanisms, compliance depends entirely on political will. And such will rarely appears when strategic resources, geopolitics, or military power are in play.

The peacekeeping missions don’t fare much better: in Rwanda, Bosnia, and more recently in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, UN peacekeepers have been accused of arriving too late, acting under weak mandates, or outright failing to protect vulnerable populations. Every failure further erodes the organization's credibility.

Economic and political dependence

UN programs for development, human rights, and humanitarian aid depend almost entirely on funding from member states. The major donors influence how funds are allocated,and therefore also shape priorities. If the United States, China, or Europe cut or restrict their funding, the agencies are forced to scale back operations.

In other words, the UN is a giant held hostage by the powerful: it survives because the great powers still find it useful,as a diplomatic showcase, a soft power tool, or a forum that lends a veneer of legitimacy to their decisions.

Why does it still exist, then?

Despite everything, the UN remains standing for three key reasons:

1. Symbolic legitimacy: even small countries find in it a space for voice and representation.

2. Powerful interests: the major powers preserve the veto as a safeguard for their geopolitical agendas.

3Global image: no state wants to bear the political cost of withdrawing from the UN or declaring it obsolete.

Facts that confirm the erosion: the evidence keeps growing

The signs of deterioration are clear:

• The number of active armed conflicts in the world today is among the highest in recent history, despite decades of UN presence.

• Criticism from countries like India regarding the Security Council is echoed at every international summit.

• The failure to reduce extreme poverty shows that the UN Development Programme’s recommendations haven’t changed the underlying structures of global inequality.

• Media and academic reports describe the UN as a "paper tiger" or a "toothless debate club."

  
  

A Useless Organization?

To claim the UN is “completely useless” would be unfair: it still plays key roles in health, education, humanitarian aid, and human rights. But it’s undeniable that its foundational mission,to ensure global peace and security,remains unfulfilled.

What we see today is an organization trapped in its own bureaucracy, blocked by the vetoes of the few, and dependent on funding from the same powers that stifle its decisions. A kind of diplomatic ritual that survives more out of inertia than effectiveness.

The underlying dilemma

Humanity urgently needs global cooperation mechanisms to face war, environmental crises, pandemics, and mass displacement. But the UN, in its current form, does not seem capable of rising to those challenges.

Reforming the Security Council, limiting veto power, securing independent funding, and opening more space for civil society are ideas that have been debated for years,without results. Meanwhile, conflicts multiply, and the UN watches from the sidelines.

Conclusion

The UN was the great dream of the 20th century: a world learning from its mistakes and coming together to ensure peace. Today, it is largely an empty symbol, sustained by clashing interests.

What once helped prevent wars and legitimize agreements now functions more as a stage for speeches than as a true actor in global order. The open question is whether humanity will have the courage to create something new,or continue relying on an organization that, though still alive, seems increasingly irrelevant.