Is the United Nations still relevant?

Is the UN still relevant? I'll survey current debates on its role and performance.

The United Nations is still relevant, but its relevance is increasingly contested and conditional - described by many leaders and analysts as indispensable yet in need of fundamental reform.

Why it is still considered relevant

1. Universal platform with no alternative: The UN remains the only global forum where all 193 member states meet. Closing the 2026 General Debate, General Assembly President Khalilur Rahman said leaders had confronted conflict, stalled development, inequality and technological change but heard a common conviction: "the United Nations remains indispensable". World leaders at the 80th General Assembly similarly voiced support for the UN's unifying function.

That popularity itself is cited as evidence of relevance. At the 80th anniversary in 2025, with only a few exceptions, more than 190 member states were sending representatives to New York, the vast majority heads of state or government - "a clear indicator that the United Nations is widely viewed to be politically relevant".

A commentator summarized: "The United Nations still represents the power of multilateralism... So the United Nations still matters".

Global public opinion also remains favorable. Most publics in the 25-nation 2025 Pew Global Attitudes Survey hold net-positive views of the United Nations, and several nations — such as South Africa, Nigeria and Germany — have seen favorable views rise.

2. Operational roles no other body fulfills:

> The United Nations remains relevant because it provides a global platform for cooperation, conflict resolution, and development. It prevents wars through diplomacy, peacekeeping missions, and humanitarian assistance.

Its agencies like WHO, UNDP, and UNICEF support global health, poverty reduction and education, and its Sustainable Development Goals guide international development efforts. It also plays a crucial role in climate negotiations and refugee protection.

Specifically:

Why relevance is questioned

1. Security Council paralysis and legitimacy crisis:

The most frequent criticism is structural:

> The Security Council's structure is outdated, giving disproportionate power to the five permanent members (P5). Veto powers often block resolutions, causing inaction in crises such as Syria, Gaza, and Ukraine.

> Its structure still reflects the world of 1945. The United States, Russia, China, Britain and France retain permanent membership and veto power. Eight decades later, those five states still possess the ability to prevent substantive Council action even when most other members support it.

The Council's decisions are binding on all 193 member states, unlike General Assembly resolutions which are advisory, so a single veto can block enforcement. Critics note bureaucracy, slow decision-making and political influence reduce effectiveness, and that the UN does not adequately represent developing countries.

Analysts argue legitimacy has been "irretrievably compromised" because Russia has blatantly violated the sovereignty of Ukraine, China refused to condemn it, and the United States is seen to have provided seemingly unconditional support for Israel's atrocities against Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Administrative changes alone would not suffice, with Africa's continued exclusion from permanent membership described as an injustice.

Reform proposals include abolition of the veto, its replacement with a weighted supermajority system and expansion to include permanent representation for Africa, Latin America and major Asian powers.

2. Financial and geopolitical pressures:

> The UN's financial difficulties have intensified under President Donald Trump's administration... In early 2025, Washington suspended most American funding for UN humanitarian activities and withheld contributions to the organisation's regular budget. Its payments towards peacekeeping were also substantially below expected levels.

Specifically, the US - the UN's largest contributor - "did not pay its contribution to the UN's regular budget in 2025 and offered only 30% of its expected funding to UN peacekeeping operations", holding about $1.5 billion in regular budget arrears alone.

The result, according to a senior UN official on October 8, 2025, is a 25 percent reduction in peacekeeping forces — meaning that between 13,000 and 14,000 military and police personnel will be repatriated. The Secretary-General has warned of an "imminent financial collapse" unless members honour obligations, while agencies like the World Food Programme have had to cut staff and reduce aid.

Geopolitically, the UN's architecture remains anchored in the post-1945 settlement, yet the order it was designed to govern is increasingly contested by Russia, China and the Global South. With the United States stepping back, China is looking to step up, taking over leadership positions throughout the UN agency system.

Bottom line

Analysts often frame relevance not as a yes/no question but as a question of function:

The consensus among most governments and experts cited in 2025-2026 is that the UN will remain relevant only if it adapts: reforming the Security Council, securing reliable funding, and shifting focus from process (number of resolutions) to results that "changes realities on the ground".