Is the United Nations still relevant?

Is the UN still relevant? I'll weigh its current impact against recent criticism and reform debates.

Is the United Nations still relevant? The short answer: Yes — but its relevance is increasingly contested, constrained, and conditional on reform.

The UN in 2026 is widely described as at an inflection point.

1. Why many argue it is still indispensable

The United Nations enters 2026 at a moment when global disorder and institutional constraints converge. In that context, the organization itself argues the UN remains indispensable, and the expectations placed on it have expanded.

Secretary-General António Guterres, presenting priorities to the General Assembly, said with only four years left until 2030 and many countries facing structural constraints, "it is precisely in such a context that the role of the United Nations becomes even more relevant".

That relevance is seen in three core functions:

a) Humanitarian and development work: No other organization has the same global reach and legitimacy. The UN says no one can deny that in the past seven decades, the UN has saved many lives through its humanitarian works, its peacekeeping operations as well as its vaccination and education campaigns.

Recent examples cited by UN leadership include providing lifesaving support in Gaza, championing girls' education in Afghanistan, protecting civilians in Sudan, and stepping up efforts to end the war in Ukraine.

In 2024, the UN coordinated a $50 billion appeal for the humanitarian needs of 198 million people, and helped to mobilize $25 billion enabling life-saving assistance to reach 116 million people across 77 countries and territories.

b) Peacekeeping: Peacekeeping is the largest and most visible activity in the field, with more than 60,000 men and women from 115 countries currently serving with 11 missions across the globe. UN leadership calls it: "Peacekeeping is not a luxury; it is a lifeline for millions who count on it for a future without fear".

c) Norm-setting and collective legitimacy: The UN Charter remains the basis for international law. Even critics acknowledge the Security Council has played a central role in peacekeeping, conflict resolution and upholding international law. The UN marked 80 years since its founding on United Nations Day, and is still the only forum where all 193 Member States meet. At a time when the world is seeing "the highest number of conflicts since the founding of the United Nations", supporters argue a universal forum is more, not less, needed.

Even after the US announced withdrawal from dozens of international organizations, the UN stated: "All United Nations entities will go on with the implementation of their mandates as given by Member States".

2. Why relevance is questioned

The same reports that defend the UN acknowledge its authority and effectiveness are increasingly contested, while political support and resources have narrowed.

a) Security Council paralysis: The most common criticism is the veto power of the five permanent members (P5) — China, France, Russia, UK, US. While the Council has played a central role, its veto system has often stalled action and sparked criticism.

Vetoes are lamented, and calls for Security Council reform are reiterated, while an underlying reality goes unaddressed. Analysts warn that without sustained deconfliction among the P5, the U.N. cannot function as a system of collective security.

The structure is also viewed as unrepresentative, leaving regions like Africa and Latin America without a permanent voice. Guterres has warned: "Without a Security Council fit for purpose, the world is in grave danger", and called urgent reform of the Security Council.

For years, the council's dysfunction has been treated as a symptom of geopolitical rivalry rather than the central problem to be solved. We throw up our hands at the council's inability to act in the face of massive human suffering in Gaza and Ukraine.

b) Funding and budget crisis: Last year was among the darkest in the history of the United Nations. Gripped by a budgetary crisis and unable to respond to catastrophic wars in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza, the UN spent much of 2025 focused on internal reform.

My proposed programme budget for 2026 of $3.715 billion is slightly below the 2025 approved budget.

The impact is real: Funding crisis forces deep cuts to UN peacekeeping missions. These reductions will affect every major area — fewer patrols to monitor ceasefires, fewer safe zones for civilians and less support for humanitarian relief in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, Lebanon and the Golan Heights.

Humanitarian operations were just 21 per cent funded as of September 2025, with nearly $9.6 billion received of the $45.3 billion needed.

The US, the UN's largest contributor, has called the UN a "bloated bureaucracy" that has lost its way, and called for mandates with clear political objectives and measurable benchmarks.

c) Competition and alternatives: New U.S.-led initiatives like the Board of Peace are described as a fairly clear effort to offer a U.S.-dominated alternative to a languishing U.N. Security Council, raising fears the UN could be bypassed.

As one assessment put it: though it has saved many lives, "in its current form and function, the United Nations is certainly on course to become irrelevant".

3. Can it stay relevant? The reform debate

Almost everyone inside and outside the UN agrees reform is essential to maintain relevance.

Two major efforts are underway:

United Nations University argues that for 2026, the priority should shift: The U.N. must become less inward-looking and more strategically relevant, pushing the P5 to engage in a constructive and sustained fashion within the organization as it is currently constituted.

The incoming secretary-general, who will take office after Guterres' term ends on Dec. 31 and take the helm in January 2027, will be seen as a political signal about the direction major powers want the institution to take.

Conclusion

The UN is still relevant in the sense that no alternative provides:

But it is less relevant as a collective security provider when the P5 are divided, as seen in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan. Its legitimacy remains fragile, with violations of the UN Charter by some Member States eroding trust.

Most experts therefore answer: The UN is relevant for what it does for the most vulnerable — but will only remain relevant for what it was created to do — preventing great-power confrontation from escalating into World War III — if its members, especially the P5, choose to use it rather than bypass it.