The United Nations was born from the ashes of world war, founded with the promise of preventing future global conflicts. Over the decades, it has grown into a complex institution with numerous branches, agencies, and functions. But while the world has evolved, the UN’s core structures have remained largely static. Its most powerful organ, the Security Council, still reflects the post-World War II power structure. The five permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—retain veto power, which they often use not to promote peace but to protect their own strategic interests. This is the central flaw that undermines the UN’s effectiveness and credibility.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the conflict in Ukraine. When Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council, invaded Ukraine in 2022, it not only violated international law but also neutralized the UN’s ability to respond meaningfully. Any resolution condemning the invasion was dead on arrival because Russia could—and did—veto it. This is not a rare anomaly; it is the expected outcome of a system that gives disproportionate power to a handful of countries. The Security Council’s paralysis during one of the most significant military conflicts in Europe since World War II is a glaring example of its dysfunction.
The situation in Myanmar offers another sobering case. After the military coup in 2021, the UN General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution condemning the junta and calling for an arms embargo. Yet the Security Council could not reach consensus on binding action due to opposition from China and Russia. Meanwhile, the people of Myanmar continue to suffer under authoritarian rule, with ethnic minorities facing persecution and armed conflict escalating. In both Ukraine and Myanmar, the international community watched while the institution designed to prevent such crises stood by, constrained by its own rules.
It’s not only about conflict. The UN has often failed to act decisively in humanitarian crises as well. In Rwanda in 1994, despite clear warnings and mounting evidence of genocide, the Security Council failed to intervene until it was too late. More than 800,000 people were killed in a span of 100 days. The aftermath led to widespread criticism and a supposed reckoning within the UN, but structural change never came. Nearly three decades later, the institution still lacks the agility and authority to respond to fast-moving atrocities.
Financial and logistical constraints compound these problems. UN peacekeeping missions are often underfunded and stretched thin. Troops are sometimes deployed without the necessary equipment, training, or mandate to act effectively. In the Central African Republic and Mali, peacekeepers have struggled to contain violence due to limited support and unclear rules of engagement. Local populations, expecting protection, are left disillusioned, and the UN’s credibility suffers.
Bureaucracy is another persistent issue. Decision-making processes are slow, overly diplomatic, and often detached from the realities on the ground. By the time the UN moves to address a crisis, the situation has often deteriorated beyond repair. The requirement for consensus among vastly different political systems means that even the smallest steps can take months, if not years. In an age where conflicts can erupt and escalate in a matter of days, this pace is unacceptable.
The UN’s structure also privileges states over people. It was built on the assumption that national governments are the primary actors in international affairs. But many of today’s conflicts are not state versus state—they are internal, fueled by non-state actors, ethnic divisions, and extremist ideologies. The traditional model of diplomacy and negotiation falls short in these scenarios. The UN has struggled to adapt its frameworks to these new dynamics, and its interventions often look like outdated responses to modern problems.
Reform is not an attack on the UN’s ideals; it’s a necessary step toward fulfilling them. The world still needs a global body committed to peace, human rights, and cooperation. But that body must be built to function in the 21st century, not the mid-20th. Proposals for reform have circulated for decades, including expanding the Security Council, abolishing the veto, and creating more representative leadership structures. Yet meaningful progress has been elusive.
Change will not come from within the UN alone. It will require pressure from civil society, member states, and alternative models that show what is possible. This is where initiatives like the Global Peace Alliance matter. They do not seek to destroy the UN, but to provide a model of what peacekeeping could look like if unburdened by outdated power politics.
The need for reform is urgent. Climate change, pandemics, cyber threats, and mass migration are global challenges that demand coordinated global responses. An immobilized UN cannot meet these demands. If we continue relying on a system built for a different era, we risk being constantly behind—reacting rather than preventing, watching rather than protecting.
Reforming the United Nations is not just a technical question—it is a moral one. If the institution cannot act to stop war, protect civilians, and uphold international law, then it fails at its most basic mandate. The choice is clear: adapt, or become irrelevant. The opportunity for transformation is still within reach. But only if we are willing to let go of old privileges and build something better for everyone.