Is the United Nations the Most Divided on its 80th Birthday?

Flag of the United Nations: Source: Wikipedia.

Eighty years ago, from the ashes of World War II, the deadliest conflict in human history, which claimed about sixty million lives, fifty nations came together to sign the United Nations Charter in San Francisco, California. They aimed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” uphold human rights, and promote social progress. Eight decades later, the UN remains the most visible symbol of collective responsibility toward humanity, but while this anniversary invites great celebration, it is also a time to reflect on its relevance to the challenges of the 21st century. 

The UN’s global influence cannot be underestimated. It has been at the forefront of addressing global crises, ranging from wars to conflicts, by sending forth peacemaking initiatives around the world. Its agencies, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Food Programme, have provided hope, sanctuary, and food to the most vulnerable communities in the world. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) set standards of dignity and liberty that still influence constitutions around the world. However, critics of the UN argue its many failures too, for example, when civilians were massacred in the 1990s under its protection and the mysterious death of its secretary general, Dag Hammarskjöld, in 1961.

Representation matters at the United Nations. For example, the UN Security Council, as the highest decision-making body, is inherently biased due to the over-representation of original members of the UN. The whole continent of Africa (1.5 billion people) is missing from the UN Security Council permanent membership. While I acknowledge the existence of 10 non-permanent members at the Security Council, their power is obsolete by the veto system of the permanent members who have commanded the UN system at their whims since 1945. 

The existing structure has repeatedly paralyzed the UN from acting in Syria, Ukraine, Sudan, and in the Arab/Israeli conflicts, to say the least. Critics argue that an institution designed to prevent power conflict can sometimes perpetuate the dividing lines, as the UN’s immediate action could have stopped the Rwanda Genocide in 1994. Furthermore, the bureaucratic machine, with its many agencies that sometimes have overlapping objectives, fails to achieve its objectives. For example, in 2015,  the UN designed the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)  to end poverty and make universal education possible in many parts of the world, other goals were not met. Now, under the new branding of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), there is a new deadline of  2030, which has been expanded to 17 goals. The UN notes in its 2025 progress report that “the current pace of change is insufficient to fully achieve all the Goals by 2030”. 

National politics of a member state can restrict or hinder the UN’s operations. The U.S., being the biggest donor and a key ally, is a case in point. This recent inaction to support UN operations through its financial commitment is a cause of concern for many analysts. In 2023, the US funded $13 billion to the UN, accounting for more than a quarter of its entire budget. This support has been a lifeline for many of its operations worldwide. Now, the current administration has withheld most of its UN funding due to domestic policies and priorities. This trend of re-directing funds can be reflective of the fact that member states are prioritizing their own national defence budgets, given the risk to border security. Tom Fletcher, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, told the Economist that the “UN has received just 19% of the aid funds it has pleaded for in 2025.” The member states need to support UN ambitions through funding and supporting its important work to maintain peace, security in the world. 

Furthermore, the US retreat (2018, US withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council and its funding) from its typical UN operations has caused a leadership deficit in global governance. The U.S. has left the Paris Climate Accord, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), and the UN Human Rights Council. The US has also revoked its funding to UNRWA, a UN Refugee Agency for Palestinians in Gaza. What will the future of the UN look like with the apparent withdrawal of its biggest donor in the world? 

Last year’s Summit of the Future in New York led to the creation of the Pact for the Future, the most ambitious reform blueprint in decades. It establishes more than fifty commitments, from updating global governance to calls for greater representation of the Global South, especially Africa and Latin America. The true test of the reforms lies in their commitment to implementation. The UN member states have a chance to ensure representation becomes a reality in the UN system. However, the change is dependent on the political will of its Permanent Members. 

The UN stands at a crossroads on its 80th anniversary. Its decades-long contribution and leadership in many global affairs cannot be overlooked. In many ways, the United Nations remains humanity’s best-known experiment in collective responsibility. Its next decade will determine whether that experiment still has the power to inspire generations to come, or whether the world will let the scaffolding of cooperation crumble, just when it is needed most.