A fading star in the firmament of global diplomacy. Once upon a time, the United Nations was the world’s moral lighthouse, born from the embers of World War II to steer humanity away from the shoals of war. Its charter carried the promise of peace, cooperation, and justice for all nations, big or small. From the 1950s through the early 1990s, it stood tall — a peacemaker in conflicts, a midwife to decolonization, and the conscience of a divided world. The blue flag fluttered as a symbol of collective resolve, and the UN seemed destined to be the parliament of mankind. The slow slide from relevance to ritual. Eighty years later, that once-glorious institution is battling its own obsolescence. The UN now resembles an ageing orchestra playing a noble tune no one stops to hear. Great-power rivalries have crippled its spirit, the Security Council is paralyzed by vetoes, and its agencies are drowned in bureaucracy. What began as a beacon of unity is now trapped in the crosscurrents of political vanity and institutional fatigue. The moral authority that once commanded respect has dimmed, leaving the UN struggling to prove its relevance in a world it helped shape but can no longer control.
The UN’s survival will depend on whether it can adapt to five emerging realities that threaten global stability: Artificial Intelligence and Cyber Governance – The absence of international norms on AI and data security could ignite a new technological arms race. The UN must take the lead in crafting a global framework — a kind of “digital Geneva Convention.” Climate Migration and Water Conflicts – Rising seas and shrinking rivers may displace over 200 million people by mid-century. UN agencies must redefine sovereignty and humanitarian law to manage cross-border displacement. Geopolitical Polarisation – The growing divide between the U.S.-led bloc and the China–Russia axis risks creating parallel institutions that bypass the UN unless it reasserts its centrality. Economic Inequality and the Global South’s Voice – The next global development agenda must move beyond aid toward fair trade and technology access. The UN’s credibility hinges on how it empowers Africa, Latin America, and South Asia. Restoring Credibility and Accountability – To regain moral authority, the UN must enforce resolutions consistently, prosecute war crimes without bias, and act decisively rather than issue declarations.
A Vision Frozen in Time When the UN Charter was signed in 1945, it embodied a noble aspiration — to prevent war, promote human rights, and ensure social progress “in larger freedom.” Yet the world the UN was built to serve — dominated by the victorious Allied powers — has changed beyond recognition. Decolonisation, globalisation, and digital transformation have created new power centres, but the UN’s structure remains frozen in 1945.
The Security Council still reflects post-war power equations. Its five permanent members — the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France — continue to hold veto powers, a privilege that has repeatedly paralysed the organisation. From the Ukraine war and Gaza conflict to the Sudan crisis, the UN has failed to act decisively, largely due to great-power obstruction. The result is waning trust among smaller nations that once saw it as a symbol of fairness. Multilateral Fatigue and the Crisis of Trust Recent global surveys reveal a paradox: people still believe in cooperation but not necessarily in the UN as the vehicle for it.
A study of 23,000 people across 18 countries found that two-thirds view international decision-making as the best way to tackle future risks. Another survey of 36,000 people in 34 nations showed that 55 per cent want their governments to work with others against common threats, even at the cost of national interests. Yet, a Nira Data poll of 117,000 respondents in 101 countries revealed that 73 per cent believe the UN needs reform — a view echoed by most governments. At the recent UN General Assembly, “reform” appeared in 78 per cent of leaders’ speeches, more than “climate change,” “Palestine,” or “Ukraine.” As Barbadian Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley aptly said, the world must first ask “whether we still agree on the values that inform our Charter.” Former senior UN officials now warn bluntly: “It is reform or die.”
The Trump Effect and the Retreat from Globalism If one leader symbolises the erosion of multilateralism, it is Donald Trump. His first presidency (2017–2021) and now his renewed term since January 2025 have both weakened global institutions. Trump’s “America First” doctrine sees multilateralism as a constraint rather than a strength.
During his earlier tenure, the U.S. withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord, defunded UNRWA, and reduced support for WHO and UNESCO. Now, his administration is again pushing for cuts to “anti-American” bodies, jeopardising the UN’s already fragile finances. The U.S. contributes nearly 22% of the UN’s regular budget and 27% of peacekeeping funds; even partial withdrawal creates a ripple of instability.
This vacuum has emboldened regional powers. Russia acts unilaterally in Eastern Europe, China asserts itself in the Indo-Pacific, and others form ad hoc coalitions outside the UN’s framework. The multilateral centre no longer holds. India’s Stake in a Reformed Multilateral Order. India’s relationship with the UN is steeped in both idealism and frustration. As a founding member and one of the largest contributors to peacekeeping, it once saw the UN as a moral platform. But despite its economic weight and population size, India remains excluded from the Security Council’s permanent membership — a glaring anachronism.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar have repeatedly called for reform, arguing that global governance must reflect “contemporary realities.” India insists that no system can be legitimate if it excludes the Global South. While continuing its active role on climate change, counterterrorism, and peacekeeping, India now also channels its energy into alternative platforms — G20, BRICS, and QUAD — where decisions are faster and more representative. Reform or Redundancy: The Last Chance to Reclaim Relevance, the UN must act decisively.
The Security Council’s expansion to include India, Japan, Germany, Brazil, and permanent African representation is no longer optional but essential. Decision-making should move beyond veto paralysis toward regional or weighted voting systems. Equally critical is financial reform to reduce dependency on a handful of donors. Greater transparency, performance-based funding for humanitarian agencies, and digital accountability mechanisms can help rebuild confidence. The UN must also redefine peacekeeping, embrace technology governance, and make climate action central to its mission in the AI-driven century.
Conclusion: Between Hope and History The United Nations at 80 remains both indispensable and inadequate — indispensable because no other institution commands universal legitimacy, and inadequate because it fails to reflect today’s world. Its decline is not inevitable, but its revival requires courage — from within and from nations willing to share power.
As global crises multiply, the choice before humanity is stark: reform the UN or risk a world without rules. For India, the path forward lies in combining moral conviction with pragmatic diplomacy — to lead reform, not merely demand it. The question is not whether the UN can survive, but whether it can still inspire.
The writer is a strategic affairs columnist and senior political analyst based in Shimla