United Nations : On verge of collapse or at threshold of reform?

Born out of the ruins of the Second World War in 1945, the United Nations was created with the hope of ensuring peace, justice and security for humanity. Its aim was to establish a global platform where all states would participate equally and disputes would be resolved through dialogue, not conflict. But after nearly eight decades the question arises—has the UN fulfilled its mission, or is it now standing at the edge of collapse?

I have personally protested on this issue in Sweden and in different countries around the world over the past few years, and have written many articles on it. The promise was of a world where states would take part equally, disputes would be resolved through dialogue rather than war, and people’s lives, freedoms and dignity would be safeguarded. That dream was named the United Nations. On 24 October 1945, it was established in New York, with 51 founding states uniting under a common goal of protecting world peace and human rights. As of 2016, the UN has 193 member states.

At its founding, the organisation’s structure and objectives were clear. The General Assembly, Security Council, International Court of Justice, Economic and Social Council—all these bodies were created to ensure coordination and accountability among states. Veto power was granted to the permanent members of the Security Council, then believed to prevent conflict among major powers.

Nearly eight decades later, doubts remain over whether the UN has achieved its core objectives. On 23 September 2025, US President Donald Trump delivered a sharply critical speech at the UN General Assembly. He described the organisation as “broken” and “ineffective”, saying it had “failed to establish world peace”. He even cited a broken escalator and a malfunctioning teleprompter as examples of internal dysfunction, though a UN spokesperson clarified these were caused by the US delegation itself. Trump’s speech also touched on migration, climate change, the Ukraine war and recognition of the Palestinian state. He criticised EU migration policy and green energy projects, called climate change “the biggest hoax in the world”, and accused NATO countries of double standards for buying Russian energy.

His remarks sparked worldwide discussion. French President Emmanuel Macron stressed the importance of international cooperation through the UN, countering Trump’s nationalist outlook. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva criticised Trump’s unilateral actions as threats to Brazil’s sovereignty. UN Secretary-General António Guterres, responding to the criticism, reaffirmed the organisation’s commitment to peace and expressed hope of continuing cooperation with the US.

In reality, the UN’s actions are often obstructed by the interests of powerful states. A clear example is the Gaza crisis of 2024. A proposal to send humanitarian aid—vital to save children, the elderly and civilians—was blocked by a permanent member’s veto, leaving thousands deprived of aid. Not only in Gaza but also in Ukraine, Myanmar, Afghanistan and Haiti, the UN’s structural and policy limitations have failed to ensure ordinary people’s safety and justice.

The UN’s main bodies are the General Assembly, where each state has an equal vote; the Security Council, responsible for maintaining peace; the Economic and Social Council, which oversees development policy; the Secretariat, which handles administration; the International Court of Justice, which resolves disputes among states; and the Trusteeship Council, once responsible for overseeing colonies and slavery, now inactive.

Within this structure lies a major problem—the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Originally intended to prevent conflict among powerful states, in practice it has become a major barrier to preventing humanitarian crises and war crimes. The 2024 Gaza aid proposal failed because of a veto. The Ukraine war (2022–ongoing) and the Myanmar military coup also illustrate the Security Council’s inability to act effectively.

The UN cites peacekeeping missions as successes. Troops have been sent to many countries including those in Africa, Haiti and Congo. Bangladesh, India, Nepal and other South Asian nations have made significant contributions. Yet the reality is harsh—peacekeepers in Haiti have faced allegations of sexual abuse and child exploitation. Peacekeeping forces have often failed to deliver long-term solutions, and their role in the 2010 cholera outbreak in Haiti remains unresolved.

The UN’s budget comes from member state contributions. The US alone provides about 22%, giving it disproportionate influence. Smaller states’ voices are marginalised. The Human Rights Council shows double standards—silent on Palestine and Yemen, but tough on weaker states. The International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court have failed to act effectively against powerful states, as the US, Russia and China refuse to recognise ICC jurisdiction.

Recent examples are striking—Gaza aid in 2024 delayed due to veto; Security Council paralysed over Ukraine; China’s veto threat during Myanmar’s coup and Rohingya crisis; corruption and cholera linked to the Haiti peacekeeping mission. In Gaza, families search for shelter from dawn to dusk, with no food for children and the elderly, while aid proposals are blocked by veto. Each of these events directly affects the lives of thousands.

Proposals for reform include—veto reform, transparency in the Secretary-General’s election, balance in funding, accountability in peacekeeping, reform of the Human Rights Council, decentralisation and global citizen participation.

The UN is an invaluable institution in modern history. Its contributions in disaster relief, education and health projects are immense. But the Security Council veto, funding imbalances, weaknesses in peacekeeping and double standards in the Human Rights Council have left it nearly paralysed. Today, the UN is not at the brink of collapse, but at the threshold of reform. Without reform, the dream of global peace, human rights and justice will be at risk. Reform is the only path to restore it as a true symbol of universal peace and justice.

The UN remains a priceless institution for peace and justice in the modern world. Yet the limitations of the veto, funding disparities and double standards hinder its effectiveness. Without genuine reform, collective initiatives and global solidarity, the dream of peace, human rights and justice will remain endangered. This is not only a call for the UN, but especially for developing countries like Bangladesh. Political instability, border conflicts, climate change, the Rohingya crisis and limited education and healthcare in disaster-prone areas threaten the safety and dignity of the population. Without global solidarity and effective international cooperation, these challenges are nearly impossible to overcome. It is therefore the duty of the world to restore the UN as a symbol of universal peace, justice and human rights—reform is the only way forward.

Rahman Mridha: Researcher, writer and former Director, Pfizer, Sweden