In 2025, the United Nations is celebrating its 80th anniversary, presenting a timely opportunity for strategic reflection—particularly amid intensifying geopolitical tensions among major powers and the widespread outbreak of conflicts across the globe.
On one hand, Europe is currently witnessing a massive military confrontation between Russia and the West in Ukraine. This has involved increasingly advanced armaments, including long-range missiles and drones, and the looming threat of tactical nuclear weapons use. In recent years, relations between the U.S. and Russia have severely deteriorated, all arms control talks have been frozen, and a renewed strategic rivalry has emerged in the Arctic—and recently, in outer space as well.
On the other hand, U.S. and Western relations with China have evolved beyond mere competition over trade and technology, shifting decisively toward strategic confrontation. Military conflict scenarios and the use of force are now widely discussed around the world. The Middle East alone contains multiple active conflict zones, including Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and Syria—not to mention the inhumane massacre in Gaza.
Furthermore, Israel attacked Iran, triggering a dangerous new strategic conflict in the Middle East that could have severe consequences for regional and global peace, security, trade, and economic growth. The United States further escalated tensions by launching highly sophisticated military strikes on at least three Iranian nuclear sites, citing opposition to Iran’s nuclear policies.
These developments carry significant implications for the international system—a system the United Nations was designed to uphold and improve. Let us not forget that the UN was originally established to prevent the outbreak of a third world war. Fortunately, such a war has not occurred. However, the death toll and destruction resulting from decades of conflict—including those mentioned above—have already exceeded the devastation caused by previous world wars.
Blatant Use of Force
What stands out is the repeated and blatant use of force in clear violation of the principles and provisions of the UN Charter—often by permanent members of the UN Security Council or their close allies, who enjoy immunity from accountability by virtue of great power backing.
A recent example is the U.S. veto of a Security Council resolution calling for a permanent, unconditional ceasefire in Gaza, the release of hostages, and the lifting of humanitarian restrictions—despite 14 other Council members voting in favor.
Another example is Israel’s use of force against Iran, in blatant violation of the UN Charter. Regardless of the legitimate questions raised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about Iran’s nuclear program—which Iran should have answered promptly—attacking Iranian nuclear facilities directly contradicts the provisions of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention, which explicitly prohibits such actions.
As a result, the credibility of the United Nations—especially its political bodies—has been seriously damaged over the years. Chief among these is the Security Council, which seems to act only when decisions align with the interests of the world’s two dominant powers, regardless of whether such actions comply with the UN Charter.
Trump’s Expected Criticism
As the UN General Assembly convenes in the fall of 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to deliver a fiery speech attacking the Assembly. He is likely to accuse the organization of excessive spending and widespread corruption, and to call for major reforms and budget cuts. The U.S. administration believes that firmness is a virtue and has already withdrawn from several international organizations, such as UNESCO, and global agreements, including the Paris Climate Accord.
As of recently, over 100 countries have failed to pay their 2025 dues to the United Nations. The United States alone owes $1.5 billion in arrears, and China has also delayed its payments. This has placed enormous pressure on the UN’s ability to pay salaries, maintain peacekeeping operations, and implement various programs.
Despite its current challenges, I remain a firm supporter of the United Nations. Though weakened, it remains the best available platform for multilateralism in today’s world. With 193 current member states—and a likely 194th as Palestine pushes for full membership—it is clear that most of the international community still prefers resolving disputes through the UN platform rather than outside of it.
Yet dissatisfaction with the UN’s performance persists. Many are calling strongly for serious reforms to empower—not weaken—the organization.
Three Core Reform Demands
Three central demands lie at the heart of reform calls, whether directed at the UN itself and its specialized agencies, or at the Bretton Woods institutions:
- Enhanced Representation: Expanding the membership of key bodies like the Security Council to 24–25 members, including at least two permanent seats for Africa, which remains underrepresented.
- Fairer Power Distribution: Curbing the misuse or overuse of the veto power, and implementing measures to prevent potential overreach by the General Assembly.
- More Equitable Decision-Making: Reducing the dominance of wealthy nations in vote weighting—especially in multilateral financial institutions.
Efforts to limit the absolute power of the UN’s permanent members may seem unrealistic given the U.S. position. However, it’s worth noting that the U.S. has previously spearheaded reform efforts. For instance, in 1950, it introduced General Assembly Resolution 377, known as the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, during the Korean War. This was a response to Soviet vetoes obstructing Security Council efforts to defend South Korea. The resolution allows the General Assembly to call emergency special sessions when the Security Council fails to act.
Interestingly, over the past 80 years, the Security Council has repeatedly failed to take appropriate and fair action when the decisions involved its permanent members or their close allies. As a result, both permanent and non-permanent members have suffered from the resulting deadlock. Therefore, all parties—including the UN itself—stand to benefit from implementing the three reform demands outlined above.
The 80th Anniversary Initiatives
To this end, the “UN at 80 Initiative,” launched in March 2025, along with the “Pact for the Future and UN 2.0,” aims to modernize the UN’s mission, priorities, and operations. One proposed solution to the financial crisis is relocating certain UN agencies from expensive cities like New York to more affordable locations such as Nairobi.
While such steps are commendable, full payment of membership dues remains essential. Equal membership and operational reform based on merit are necessary for the UN and its agencies to meet the challenges of the 21st century. This reform must include—but not be limited to—financial aspects.
Non-permanent members (the “middle powers” from around the world) should form a coalition of the willing to pursue political, economic, and administrative reforms in intergovernmental organizations. They must unite and assert that repairing and revitalizing multilateralism is vital to safeguarding its credibility.
Conclusion: A Turning Point or a Missed Opportunity?
The UN’s 80th anniversary must be seized as an opportunity for genuine cooperative reform. Otherwise, future generations may look back on this milestone not as a celebration, but as a tragic turning point in which the UN fell into political irrelevance and lost its credibility.
