Is the United Nations still relevant?

Is the UN still relevant? I'll gather up-to-date analysis on its role and challenges.

Is the United Nations still relevant? The short answer from most governments and analysts in 2025-2026 is: yes, but its relevance is increasingly contested and conditional on reform.

The debate is no longer about whether the UN should exist, but whether it can produce results.

Why the UN is still considered relevant

1. The only universal forum: The UN remains the only truly universal forum where all nations can engage, providing a platform for all member states to engage in diplomacy, resolve disputes, and address common challenges. As Secretary-General António Guterres put it: "The United Nations exists because power requires rules – and humanity needs a place where power answers to principle".

2. Peace and security: Since its first peacekeeping mission in 1948, the UN has deployed "blue helmets" to conflict zones worldwide. Peacekeeping remains a cornerstone of international efforts to promote security and stability - monitoring ceasefire agreements, protecting civilians, facilitating humanitarian aid, and supporting political transitions. As of 2025/26 the proposed peacekeeping budget was $5.5 billion, described as one of the Organization's most important and visible conflict management instruments.

3. Norms, human rights and development: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 is a global benchmark for protecting fundamental freedoms. The UN has been at the forefront of efforts to eradicate poverty, improve global health, promote gender equality, and support sustainable development through its various programs and specialized agencies, such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). Agencies like WHO, UNICEF and UNESCO provide health services and promote education and skills development.

Supporters argue that without the UN, the world would be left without a global forum for addressing common challenges and the alternative is a dangerous vacuum that could lead to unchecked power politics. As Guyana argued at the General Assembly: "This is why we must not abandon multilateralism because it is imperfect; we must renew it because humanity still needs it".

Why relevance is questioned

1. Security Council paralysis and the veto: The most consistent criticism is the veto power of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council. The five permanent members — the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom — hold veto power, which means that any one of these countries can block any substantive resolution, regardless of the support it has from other members.

The veto, intended as a safeguard, has often hindered decisive action. Major powers have blocked interventions in Syria, Ukraine, and Palestine. More broadly, the UN has been criticized for its inability to prevent or effectively respond to egregious violations in Rwanda, Srebrenica, and more recently in Syria, Myanmar and Gaza.

The composition of the Security Council, with its permanent members reflecting the power dynamics of 1945, fails to account for the rise of new powers and the changing geopolitical landscape.

2. Representation deficit: Africa's continued absence from permanent membership was a recurrent theme in the 2026 General Debate. Kenya put it bluntly: "The equality proclaimed in this Assembly ends at the doors of the Security Council". Guterres himself called the status quo indefensible: "A 21st century Security Council without permanent African seats is unjust and indefensible". Proposals range from expanding membership to abolishing the veto outright - Spain called for fair representation and to do away with the right of veto - while Russia cautioned reforms shouldn't erode the prerogatives of the Permanent Members.

3. Funding and operational crisis: The organization is gripped by a budgetary crisis and unable to respond to catastrophic wars in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza. Peacekeeping was $2.7 billion in the red as of May 2025, even as peacebuilding and peacekeeping constitutes only 0.52% of total global military expenditure.

The United States, its largest contributor, has driven much of the pressure: it cut the UN budget for the first time ever, slashing it by 15 percent in 2026 and eliminating more than 4,000 positions, and in 2025 and 2026 announced decisions to withdraw from or cease funding to the Human Rights Council, UNRWA, the World Health Organization, UNESCO, and 31 other UN entities.

Bureaucratic inefficiencies, overlapping mandates and selective application of rules also undermine trust. The General Assembly President noted: "Outside these walls, people are not asking whether the United Nations still exists. They are asking whether it works", adding that "The United Nations cannot demand trust. It must earn it".

Reform or irrelevance?

Virtually all member states agree the UN must change to reflect the realities of the 21st century. Two competing visions have emerged:

Analysts warn that for 2026 the priority should shift: The U.N. must become less inward-looking and more strategically relevant, refocusing on preventing great-power confrontation from escalating, rather than just internal reform.

Conclusion

Critics who call the UN obsolete point to its failures to stop major wars, its veto-induced paralysis, and its gap between lofty ideals and realities on the ground.

Defenders counter that despite being flawed but indispensable, the UN remains our best hope in an interconnected world facing transnational threats like climate change, pandemics, and terrorism that require concerted action. The world still needs the United Nations, but as an institution whose founding Charter entered into force in 1945, its continued relevance will depend on whether it can reform its structure, secure sustainable financing, and demonstrate impact on the ground for the people it serves.