Eighty years ago, in the ruins of a world war, the United Nations was created with an audacious promise: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.
Today, with 193 member states and decades of service behind it, the UN stands at a crossroads. This institution, once bold in its founding ideals, now finds itself tested by resurgent conflict and geopolitical gridlock.
The UN Charter is not an à la carte menu"
In his anniversary address, UN Secretary-General António Guterres reminded world leaders that the UN Charter "is not an à la carte menu"—its principles are not optional, nor to be applied only when convenient.
The sting in his words lies in the fact that the organisation's most glaring failures often occur when the most powerful nations are involved.
In Ukraine, the Security Council has been paralysed—vetoes and political rivalry blocking any meaningful action against a war launched by one of its permanent members. In Gaza, the UN's humanitarian role has been indispensable, yet it has had little success in ending the violence. Two decades earlier, the Iraq war proceeded without UN authorisation, revealing how major powers can sidestep the system altogether.
These moments expose the structural weakness of the Security Council's veto system—a flaw that allows national interest to trump collective security.
Yet, to write off the UN is to ignore where it works best. In conflicts where big-power politics are absent—Sierra Leone, Liberia, East Timor, Cambodia—UN peacekeepers and political missions have ended wars, supported democratic transitions, and rebuilt civic institutions.
These are not small victories; they are life-changing interventions for millions.
The UN's influence has been equally profound in development and humanitarian work. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and their successor, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), mobilised unprecedented global cooperation to tackle poverty, expand education, and address climate change.
Through its agencies, the UN has eradicated smallpox, drastically reduced polio, fed tens of millions via the World Food Programme, and sheltered millions of refugees through the UN Refugee Agency. The World Health Organization has led global health campaigns and coordinated pandemic responses, while UN emergency teams have been first on the ground after earthquakes, tsunamis, and other disasters.
These achievements stem from the UN's unique position as the only universal forum where all nations—large or small—can negotiate, deliberate, and take collective action. For smaller states, it provides a safeguard through international norms and laws that might otherwise be ignored. For global citizens, it offers a lifeline in moments of crisis.
But at 80, the UN faces existential challenges: growing geopolitical division, chronic funding shortfalls, and declining public trust in multilateralism. The most urgent reform is to address Security Council paralysis. As long as the veto power remains unchecked, the UN will continue to struggle in its core mission to maintain international peace and security.
Diplomacy, cooperation, and common purpose are not optional—they are our only option'
To secure its future, member states must recommit to the Charter's principles—not only in speeches, but in policy. That means applying international law consistently, protecting the institution's independence, and fully supporting its humanitarian, peacekeeping, and development programs.
The UN at 80 is imperfect—slow at times, frustrating in moments, and powerless when the strong refuse to listen. But in a world beset by war, climate change, pandemics, and inequality, dismantling it would not make these problems smaller—it would make them unmanageable.
The challenge is not whether we need the United Nations. We do. The real question is whether we have the will to make it work as it was meant to.
______________
The writer is the US bureau chief of Dhaka Stream and former Fulbright Hubert H Humphrey Fellow, University of Maryland
Comments