The United Nations is celebrating its 80th anniversary in 2025, making it high time for strategic reflection. The milestone arrives amid escalating geopolitical tensions between major powers and widespread global conflicts.
Europe, once considered a bastion of tranquility and cooperation, now grapples with a massive military conflict in Ukraine involving Russia and the West. The conflict has seen sophisticated militarisation, from the use of long-range missiles to drones, and even threats involving the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons.
Recent years have witnessed a deterioration of US relations with Russia, freezing all arms-control negotiations and reigniting strategic competition in the Arctic and more recently in outer space.
Simultaneously, relations between the US, the West, and China have diverged sharply towards strategic confrontation, extending beyond trade or technology issues to include scenarios for possible military confrontation. Conflicts and the use of force have proliferated throughout the world on a broader scale. The Middle East alone has seen turmoil in Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, and the human carnage in Gaza.
As I write this article, Israel has attacked Iran, igniting another dangerous strategic conflict in the Middle East with potentially devastating consequences on regional and international peace and security, as well as on global trade and growth. The US, taking exception to Iran’s nuclear policies, has undertaken a highly sophisticated military raid against at least three Iranian nuclear sites.
All these events have fundamental consequences for the international order, for which the United Nations family was meant to provide a platform, increasing development commensurate with the 21st century. The UN was specifically established to prevent a third world war. Thankfully, there has not been one. However, the loss of lives and rampant destruction over the years through various confrontations actually exceed those witnessed in previous world wars.
The most frequent flagrant use of force beyond the principles and provisions of the UN Charter has been by the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council or their close allies, immunised from accountability by these major powers.
A recent example was the US veto of a Security Council Draft Resolution calling for an “unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza,” which also called for the release of hostages and lifting humanitarian restrictions, despite the other 14 members of the council voting in its favour.
Irrespective of concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme, Israel’s use of force against Iran was inconsistent with the UN Charter. Targeting nuclear sites also contravenes articles of the Additional Protocol of the Geneva Convention, which explicitly prohibits such actions.
Consequently, the credibility of the United Nations has suffered significantly over the years, especially its political bodies. At the top of these stands the Security Council, which seems responsive only when it serves the interests of the two most significant superpowers, irrespective of whether actions were in accordance with the UN Charter.
When the UN General Assembly holds its annual meeting in autumn 2025, US President Donald Trump is expected to deliver a fiery and strong-willed speech strongly critical of the United Nations. He is likely to highlight excess waste and corruption and to call for substantial reform and cost-cutting steps.
His address will come at a time when he appears convinced that greater assertiveness is a virtue and when the US has withdrawn from several multilateral organisations such as the UN cultural agency UNESCO and agreements such as Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Until recently, over 100 members had not fully paid their dues to the UN for 2025. The US arrears to the UN have reached $1.5 billion, and China has been delaying payments, putting significant pressure on the organisation’s ability to hire, pursue peacekeeping operations, and implement programmes.
I remain a strong supporter of the United Nations, which, while cumbersome, represents the best available platform for multilateralism and thus the world at large. UN membership has now reached 193 members, approaching 194 as Palestine strives to join. Evidently, the overwhelming majority of the international community prefers reform within rather than global relations beyond the United Nations. At the same time, many are unsatisfied with the present performance of the United Nations and are vehemently calling for its reform.
Three basic requests have formed the core of such calls, both inside the UN itself and in its family of specialised agencies, as well as within the Bretton Woods organisations.
First, there should be greater representation by increasing the membership of bodies like the Security Council to about 24 or 25 members, including at least two permanent seats for underrepresented Africa.
Second, there should be more equitable powers by limiting the misuse or excessive use of veto powers, including possible override procedures by the General Assembly. Third, there should be fairer decision-making by reducing the weighted votes of more advanced states, particularly relevant in multilateral financial institutions.
Attempting to curtail the absolute authority of Permanent Members of the Security Council may seem unrealistic. Yet, the US first took such action in 1950, when it proposed General Assembly Resolution 377 “Uniting for Peace” during the Korean War to circumvent a Soviet veto that would have blocked the efforts of the Security Council to defend South Korea from North Korea.
The resolution established that the General Assembly can call for an emergency special session if the Security Council fails to exercise its responsibility.
Interestingly, throughout the last 80 years, the Security Council has repeatedly been unable to adopt decisions when different Permanent Members or their close allies were the subject of a resolution. Permanent and non-permanent members have suffered from this stalemate, and everyone, as well as the organisation itself, would benefit from addressing the three reform requests.
Regarding such reform, the UN80 Initiative of March 2025 and the Pact for the Future & UN2.0 attempt to update the organisation’s work, priorities, and operations through direct responses to the current financial crisis, including by moving some bodies from New York to less costly venues like Nairobi.
While these represent worthy steps, and arrears should be fully paid, equal membership and the merit-based operational reform of the United Nations and its organisations remains imperative for meeting the challenges and priorities of the 21st century. Such reform should substantially include but not be exclusively financial in nature.
Non-permanent members of the Security Council and “middling states” from all over the world, must create a coalition of the willing to embrace political, economic, and managerial reforms of the intergovernmental organisations without prejudice or preference.
They must firmly raise their voices and resolutely affirm that reformed multilateralism is imperative for continued relevance. Action should occur as we move towards the 80th anniversary of the United Nations this year, providing an invaluable opportunity for constructive cooperative reform.
If this is not done, future generations may view this anniversary as an ominous turning point in UN history when the organisation fell into the political abyss of irrelevance.
*The writer is a former minister of foreign affairs of Egypt. The article is published in collaboration with Future for Research & Advanced Studies.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 10 July, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: