As wars rage in Gaza, Iran and Ukraine, is the UN struggling for relevance?

The UN faces growing criticism for its limited role in major conflicts, as Gaza, Iran and Ukraine expose the body's structural weaknesses and crisis of legitimacy

As Israeli airstrikes hit Iranian military installations earlier this month and tensions escalated across West Asia, the global spotlight turned—once again—towards the United Nations. But the Security Council chamber remained quiet. No resolution was passed. No unified action was taken. Questions are being raised again about the relevance of such a global body. From New York to Gaza to Kyiv, the UN has mostly watched, not led.

 

The United Nations turns 80 this October. But the anniversary arrives not with celebration, but with hesitation. What was once founded as humanity’s grandest experiment in global cooperation now stands weakened—almost paralysed—in a world that has grown far more tumultuous than it was in 1945.

 

The UN, created from the ashes of the Second World War and charged with preserving peace, upholding human rights, and confronting global challenges, finds itself unable to prevent bloodshed in Gaza or stop a grinding war in Ukraine. Its legitimacy is questioned, its finances are under pressure, and its structure looks increasingly outdated. At this point, the question that is on everybody’s mind is no longer about reform but about the global body’s relevance.

 

Second World War and the birth of the UN

 

The United Nations was officially born on October 24, 1945, when representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco to sign a founding charter. It was a direct response to the failure of the League of Nations and a conscious attempt to design a stronger international body that could prevent the recurrence of catastrophic wars.

 

Drawing legitimacy from wartime declarations like the Atlantic Charter and the Declaration of St James’s Palace, the UN laid out four founding purposes: to maintain international peace and security, to promote friendly relations among nations, to foster international cooperation in solving economic, social and humanitarian issues, and to serve as a platform where nations could harmonise their actions.

 

The institutional framework rested on six key organs: the General Assembly, Security Council, International Court of Justice, Economic and Social Council, Secretariat, and the now-suspended Trusteeship Council, along with an expanding network of specialised agencies such as the World Health Organization, the United Nations Children's Fund, and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

 

That grand vision, however, is increasingly running into the hard limits of geopolitics and institutional design.

 

What is undermining the already limited authority of the UN?

 

One of the most fundamental issues undermining the UN is its finances. The organisation is funded through a hybrid system of assessed and voluntary contributions. The assessed contributions are mandatory payments made by each member state, calculated according to the country’s capacity to pay. These cover the regular budget and peacekeeping costs. In contrast, voluntary contributions fund most of the UN's operational agencies and are often earmarked for specific programs, giving donors disproportionate influence over priorities.

 

In 2022, the United States remained the largest single contributor, with a total of $18.1 billion in assessed and voluntary payments combined, covering roughly 22 per cent of the core UN budget and 28 per cent of peacekeeping expenses. China, now the second-largest contributor, accounted for 20 per cent of the regular budget, while Japan followed at just under 7 per cent. 

Public trust in the UN is eroding as surveys conducted across continents shows. Large majorities express doubts about the organisation’s ability to resolve crises or represent global interests. (Chart| Edelman Trust Barometer, Pew Research Center)

 

But the trend since has been one of growing unease. In 2024, the United States failed to make the UN’s 'Honor Roll', a designation for countries that pay their dues in full and on time. The consequences of such a signal go beyond numbers: it suggests a waning commitment from the very member that historically provided the institutional backbone.

 

Manjeev Singh Puri, former Indian ambassador to the European Union and to Nepal, notes, “Voluntary contributions are useful in emergencies but are politically contingent. Assessed contributions are more stable but are often held hostage to domestic politics. That’s the dilemma: a UN caught between moral imperatives and donor priorities, between multilateralism and the politics of power.”

 

What structural flaws ail the UN?

 

Beyond finances, the UN suffers from a structural flaw that has proven nearly impossible to fix: the inability to enforce its own decisions. It has no standing army or independent enforcement mechanism. It cannot compel nations to abide by its rulings. Its resolutions carry the weight of international consensus, but not the muscle to implement them.

 

The Security Council, arguably the most powerful arm of the UN, is able to impose sanctions and authorise military intervention under Chapter VII of the Charter. But that authority is frequently neutralised by the veto powers of its five permanent members: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China.

 

“This is how the UN was born,” says Puri. “It was never meant to be a level playing field. Global governance has always been a power game of nations. The five permanent members were the victors of the Second World War and they institutionalised their dominance.”

 

Even the International Court of Justice, tasked with adjudicating legal disputes between states, is hamstrung by the principle of consent. States must agree to its jurisdiction, and even then, compliance with its rulings is often selective or delayed.

 

“The UN looks helpless, but even superpowers require legitimacy,” adds Puri. “Why else would the US insist on a cabinet-rank ambassador to the UN or rely on the IAEA to inspect nuclear programs? They need the fig leaf of multilateral legitimacy.”

 

Which wars has the UN stopped and where has it failed?

 

Over the decades, the UN has launched 72 peacekeeping missions, with 12 still operational as of 2024. These missions have had a mixed record. They helped stabilise post-conflict societies in Namibia, Cambodia, Mozambique, El Salvador, and Sierra Leone. But in Rwanda, nearly 800,000 people were killed while UN troops watched. In Srebrenica, a UN-declared 'safe zone' became a site of massacre in July 1995.

 

“In Timor-Leste, the UN played a real role. In the Balkans too, but only when backed by superpowers,” notes Puri. “India is the largest cumulative contributor to UN peacekeeping. We’ve seen up close that peacekeeping works except when major powers are involved.”

 

UN’s diminishing influence in today’s wars

 

Today, the United Nations is staring at the most complex geopolitical landscape since the Cold War. The war in Ukraine has split the Security Council. The Gaza conflict has exposed the organisation’s inability to either mediate or stop violence. The United States under Donald Trump has threatened to further cut funds, while China has used its growing financial clout to shape institutional narratives and development priorities.

 

Europe’s role has weakened amid financial strain and political fragmentation. Meanwhile, the rise of alternative power blocs such as Brics, the African Union, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has shifted attention away from New York.

 

Still, Ambassador Puri warns against overestimating these "mini-laterals". “These coalitions of the willing have always existed. But they don’t replace the legitimacy that only a multilateral forum like the UN provides. Brics, for example, hasn’t shown capacity to handle peacekeeping. Imagine if Brics had to deal with Iran being bombed—a member it only inducted last year.”

 

“Mini-laterals are useful. But they can’t confer legitimacy. That’s the UN’s unique role, and we can’t discard that,” he says.

 

Reform or retreat - what is needed?

 

Public trust in the UN is eroding. In surveys conducted across continents, large majorities express doubts about the organisation’s ability to resolve crises or represent global interests. In many parts of the world, the UN is seen as either an extension of Western power or a passive observer incapable of decisive action.

 

Reform has long been discussed but rarely realised. Proposals to restructure the Security Council, eliminate the veto, or expand permanent membership have stalled. Financial reforms have struggled to gain traction.

 

For Puri, the future lies not in abandoning the UN, but in playing the long game. “This is where legitimacy comes from. If you want a seat at the high table or even close to it you need to stay engaged. That’s why India must remain active in multilateral forums. That’s where recognition happens,” he says.

 

At this juncture, the world is not just debating its reform. It is questioning whether the architecture of 1945 can survive in a world of climate crises, cyber warfare, disinformation, and rising authoritarianism.

 

“The relevance of the UN or multilateralism is that much, as much as the power game of nations allows. In my understanding, what is happening now, 1992 was a specific game-changing period, a sweet spot, if I may say so, when many things happened. What's happening now is fundamentally a challenge to the G7 hegemony. And the challenge is coming from China. That's the main challenge,” notes Puri.

 

But if the UN is broken, so is the world order it symbolises and fixing one may require reimagining both.