Founded in 1945 in the aftermath of World War II, the United Nations (UN) was designed to prevent further global catastrophes, promoting peace, upholding international law, and protecting human rights. In its early years, it was the hope of a war-torn world, a platform for diplomacy, collective security, and a steadfast commitment to global cooperation.
Eighty years on, that vision feels increasingly distant. The UN, once the international body charged with maintaining peace and securing human rights, now seems sidelined in the face of escalating global crises. Its once unshakable authority is undermined by great-power rivalry, and its attempts to mediate conflicts often falter under the weight of entrenched geopolitical tensions. This leads to a pressing question: If the UN is no longer able to fulfil its original mandate, who can we trust to step in, and what does that mean for global peace?
From Cold War Paralysis to Today’s Gridlock
The UN has always been constrained by the politics of its member states, especially the great powers. During the Cold War, the Security Council was often paralyzed by the rivalry between the superpowers, but the UN still managed to play a meaningful role. It oversaw decolonization, pioneered peacekeeping operations, and even facilitated collective actions, such as the Korean War intervention and the imposition of sanctions regimes. While it couldn’t prevent every conflict, it served as a stabilizing force on the world stage.
Today, however, the gridlock feels more profound. The wars in Ukraine, Syria, and Sudan along with the UN’s decades-long inability to broker peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, highlight not just the Security Council’s dysfunction, but a deeper crisis of confidence. How did the institution that was once a beacon of global cooperation descend into irrelevance in so many areas? And if it’s no longer the guarantor of peace and security, then who will take on that mantle?
The UN’s Changing Focus: Climate Change vs Peace and Security
In recent years, the UN’s focus has shifted from its core mission of peacekeeping to addressing global challenges like climate change. Initiatives like the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals have brought the UN into the spotlight in ways its peace and security efforts have not. These initiatives enjoy broad international support, and climate action, for instance, is a cause that unites many nations.
Yet, this pivot raises important questions. Is the UN focusing on climate change because it is the most pressing issue of our time, or because it is easier to gain consensus on? While tackling climate change is significant, it’s an area where many other actors can step in. The bigger question is: if the UN continues to neglect its foundational peacekeeping role, will it lose its reason for being altogether? A world without a neutral body dedicated to maintaining peace will soon find itself in a much more fragmented, unstable, and uncertain place.
Who Steps in When the UN Cannot?
With the UN’s declining influence, other actors have begun to fill the vacuum. Major powers are increasingly acting independently or forming alternative alliances, with NATO, the EU, and rising blocs like BRICS, all carving out their spheres of influence. While these coalitions play a role in stabilizing certain regions, they also reflect a broader trend: as the UN falters, global governance becomes more fragmented, and the dream of a universal peacekeeper slips further out of reach.
Regional organizations, such as the African Union (AU) and ECOWAS, are also stepping in to manage crises that the UN has failed to address effectively. ASEAN, though more cautious, offers a platform for conflict management in Asia. Meanwhile, civil society organizations and NGOs have become key players in human rights advocacy, humanitarian work, and the protection of vulnerable populations.
Yet, while these regional and non-state actors bring vital resources to the table, they can’t fill the UN’s original role as a global peacekeeper. These organizations are often more fragmented and less neutral than the UN was designed to be, driven by specific regional or ideological agendas. This lack of a universal, impartial platform for peace raises concerns that humanitarian efforts may become increasingly politicized, further complicating global cooperation.
What About Human Rights and Democracy?
Human rights remain central to the UN’s mission, but powers like Russia, China, and Iran often obstruct or ignore its resolutions. As the UN’s authority weakens, NGOs have become crucial in human rights advocacy, providing more flexible responses to crises. However, their growing influence also comes with its own risks. Unlike the UN, which was designed to be a neutral global actor, many NGOs are tied to specific political agendas or ideological positions. This situation may lead to the separation of human rights efforts and their use in international competition, rather than maintaining the universal standards established by the UN.
Four Future Scenarios for the UN
Looking ahead, the future of the UN is uncertain. Will it reform and regain its relevance, or will it continue to recede into the background of global governance? Here are four potential scenarios:
- Status Quo:
The UN continues to focus on humanitarian work, development, and climate action, but remains paralyzed on the political front. It serves as a symbol of international cooperation but struggles to address crises. - Partial Reform:
Reforms, such as expanding the Security Council or modifying the veto power, could inject some energy into decision-making. However, power politics would likely continue to undermine the UN’s ability to act decisively. - Bypass or Replacement:
Major blocs like NATO or BRICS+ take the lead on global governance, sidelining the UN. Regional organizations assume greater responsibility for security, and the UN becomes increasingly symbolic. - Radical Reform (Utopian):
A fundamental overhaul of the UN, such as limiting or abolishing the veto power, could restore its legitimacy and effectiveness. However, this scenario remains highly unlikely given the current geopolitical climate.
An Open Question
The UN’s future hangs in the balance. Once the world’s foremost guarantor of peace, its diminishing role in global governance begs a difficult question: if the UN can no longer deliver, who will? Today, the responsibility for maintaining international peace and security increasingly lies with those willing and able to act, whether it’s regional powers, great-power alliances, or even civil society organizations. For smaller nations, like Sweden, the answer may lie in continuing to support the UN’s humanitarian mission, while recognizing that in the realm of peace and security, power politics and regional actors are now the main players. The era of the UN as the world’s peacekeeper may be fading, and we must ask: who will we turn to when the world needs saving?