Is the United Nations still relevant?

The question of UN relevance is a long-running debate that intensifies during major global crises. Let me check on recent developments to give you a well-grounded answer.## The UN's Relevance: A Genuinely Contested Question

There's no simple yes/no answer here—the debate is very much alive in 2026, as the UN marks its 80th anniversary amid what many describe as its most serious crisis in decades. Here's the honest picture from both sides:

The Case Against Relevance (or at least effectiveness)

The most damning evidence is the Security Council's paralysis. The United Nations Security Council faces a deepening crisis of effectiveness and legitimacy, as its anachronistic structure, centred around five permanent members with veto powers, is increasingly unable to address today's conflicts. In 2025 alone, permanent members cast vetoes blocking action on Gaza and Ukraine.

Even Secretary-General António Guterres himself has acknowledged this bluntly. Just this week he stated: "The Security Council is paralysed, but the UN is not broken." He's also called for structural reform, saying "Reform of the Security Council is imperative, and long overdue, for the maintenance of global order and safety," including "expanding the membership."

The General Assembly President went even further, warning that repeated deadlock in the Security Council has become the "poster child" for wider global gridlock, undermining trust in multilateral institutions. She noted that "Real people, watching in real time, may question the credibility and legitimacy of not only the Security Council, but of the UN in its entirety."

Compounding this is a genuine institutional crisis: the UN faces a particularly demanding year in 2026, managing the renewal of peacekeeping operations while navigating an unprecedented liquidity crisis exacerbated by funding cuts. This has forced deep cuts—the 2026 UN Secretariat budget includes a reduction of more than 9 percent in resources and 21 percent in posts compared with 2025, with more than 2,300 staff posts moved from high-cost to lower-cost locations.

Structurally, critics point out that the Council's permanent members represent a minority of the world's people, a legacy of 1945 that many argue no longer reflects global realities.

The Case For Continued Relevance

Despite this bleak picture, most serious analysts argue the UN remains indispensable rather than obsolete. As one Chicago Council analysis put it: the United Nations is as relevant, and needed, as ever—its universal character, institutional capacities, implementation muscle, and broad-based legitimacy as a venue for dialogue and diplomacy are irreplaceable.

Importantly, the Security Council's gridlock hasn't meant total institutional collapse—it's pushed activity elsewhere. Security Council gridlock has reinvigorated the UN General Assembly, with a striking repercussion of the war in Ukraine being the Assembly's resurgent determination to hold P5 nations accountable and expand its own role in international security. This dynamic continues today: the Assembly recently adopted two key resolutions demanding an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and the release of all hostages, and 142 Member States backed the New York Declaration on the Palestinian question—evidence that diplomatic momentum persists even when the Council can't act.

There's also recognition that the Council's design flaw is intentional, not accidental: gridlock is built into the structure of the UN Charter precisely to prevent unilateralism and hot wars between the P5 states. One analyst who studies council dynamics closely notes that the council remains a place where compromise is possible, including on the big issues.

My Take

The UN isn't "relevant" or "irrelevant" in a binary sense—it's a deeply flawed but still functionally necessary institution operating well below its potential. The Security Council, its most powerful organ, is genuinely broken for crises involving great-power interests (Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan). But the broader UN system—humanitarian agencies, the General Assembly, specialized bodies on health, refugees, climate—continues doing real work that no other institution can replicate at that scale or with that legitimacy.

The more accurate framing isn't "Is the UN relevant?" but "Which parts of the UN are failing, and can they be fixed before member states simply route around them?" Given the funding crisis and ongoing reform efforts (UN80), 2026 looks like a genuine inflection point for that question.