Is the United Nations still relevant?

Is the UN still relevant? I'll gather up-to-date evidence on its global impact and the current debate about its effectiveness.

The United Nations is still relevant, but its relevance is increasingly contested - a debate summarized by the theme of the 81st General Assembly in September 2026: "Restoring trust, managing transformation: a United Nations that delivers for all".

The question today is not whether the UN exists, but whether it works, as General Assembly President Khalilur Rahman put it: "Outside these walls, people are not asking whether the United Nations still exists. They are asking whether it works".

Amid what the UN describes as unprecedented global challenges - from wars, epidemics, climate change and artificial intelligence to superpower discord splintering the world order, many ask whether the UN is still a necessary space for global deal-making.

Why the UN is still considered relevant

In concrete terms, the UN today describes its work as:

It also works with 140 nations to minimize climate change and has authorized 71 international peacekeeping missions historically.

Even critics acknowledge it still makes a difference in less visible areas: infectious disease, air travel, refugee resettlement, migration and intellectual property, diplomacy to prevent conflict and assistance to some 50 countries a year with elections.

Other successes cited in 2026 include the return of nearly five million people to their homes in Iraq and delivery of aid in Haiti despite security challenges, and broader development gains over the past decade: nearly a billion people gained access to safe drinking water, electricity now reaches 92 per cent of the world's population, and internet access has risen from 40 to 74 per cent.

International support remains relatively high - 61% had a favorable opinion of the UN globally as of 2025, before the Iran war, according to Pew Research Center- and defenders argue that for all its flaws, multilateralism remains fundamental to a functioning global order.

One Kenyan analyst summarized the pro-relevance view: "The United Nations still represents the power of multilateralism... So the United Nations still matters".

Why relevance is questioned

Despite decades of proposals to reform the voting structure and diversify permanent members, there has been no change 81 years later. In 2024 there was the largest number of vetoes in 40 years, and failures to prevent or resolve wars in Sudan, Gaza, Ukraine, Myanmar and across the Middle East were openly acknowledged by the Assembly president. Former US Ambassador Robert Wood said the perception is that the P5 are not upholding their end of the bargain with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security.

This has fueled calls for deep structural reform. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan argued at UNGA 81 that "At the center of this roadmap should be the abolition of the veto privilege", saying simply adding new permanent members would not resolve concentration of power in a small number of countries. He argued no country should have the permanent ability to block the will of the majority.

Africa's 54 nations hold zero permanent seats while filling the Council's agenda, leading to demands that "Africa needs a seat at the table, not to be on the menu" and that Africa remains without a permanent Security Council seat after eight decades, which must change as a matter of "fairness, justice" and credibility. Nigeria and others have demanded at least two permanent African seats with veto powers if the veto remains.

Reform itself is blocked by the charter rule that amending the UN Charter demands approval by two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratification by all five permanent members.

The United States, as the largest contributor, has pushed to put the UN "on a diet" to "help the UN realize its potential" by cutting bureaucracy, increasing transparency and accountability. President Trump stated the US cut the UN budget for the first time ever, slashing it by 15% in 2026 and eliminating more than 4,000 positions.

Can it still "cobble together cooperation"?

Even with deep divisions, analysts note the P5 can still cooperate when they want to, citing 50,000 peacekeepers and over a dozen economic sanctions programs — far more than during the Cold War. The U.S. and China, the top two contributors, have minimized frictions by deferring to each other on issues like Afghanistan, Myanmar and Haiti, breaking down only on big splits like Iran.

Conclusion: Flawed but indispensable?

The prevailing assessment from many diplomats and scholars in 2026 is that the UN is flawed but foundational - defended as indispensable even in a fractured world.

It is less relevant as a hard-security enforcer when a P5 member is directly involved in or shields a conflict, due to the veto. It remains highly relevant as:

As the UN itself frames it, survival is not success- and as Rahman said: "When the Security Council works, the United Nations works". Whether the UN stays relevant will depend less on whether crises exist - they do - and more on whether members will accept what the presidency called "hard truths" and pursue deeper reform beyond budget cuts.