Broken Consensus: Is the UN Still Relevant?

The UN’s current structure is a colonial relic, where a few nations still dominate global rules.

The United Nations was born out of the ashes of the Second World War with a lofty promise: to prevent future wars, uphold international peace and security, and provide a forum for resolving disputes through dialogue, not violence. It was conceived as the cornerstone of a new world order, where multilateralism would guide diplomacy and global cooperation would replace confrontation. For many years, it lived up to that promise in spirit, if not always in practice. Today, however, the UN is increasingly being bypassed, ignored, or rendered ineffective in the face of the very challenges it was created to address.

The world has changed greatly since 1945, yet the UN’s core structure remains frozen in time. Institutions that fail to evolve risk irrelevance, and the UN is no exception.

Many of today’s major challenges, like climate action, security alliances, technology governance, pandemic response, and even peace negotiations, are tackled outside the UN—through bilateral or regional deals or forums like the G20, BRICS, and ASEAN. The General Assembly passes resolutions, but with no enforcement, they are mostly diplomatic theatre. The Security Council, once central to global security, is paralysed by vetoes and inaction. Unable to enforce its own decisions, it has become more of a stage for power politics than a tool for peace.

The Security Council still mirrors the power balance of 1945. The five permanent members—the US, UK, France, Russia, and China—hold disproportionate power through their veto, often blocking action in conflicts tied to their interests. As a result, the Council frequently fails to issue even statements, let alone binding resolutions.

Much of the world lacks a voice in the Council: Africa, Latin America, and much of Asia are sidelined, fuelling resentment and eroding the UN’s legitimacy.

The war in Ukraine starkly shows the UN’s paralysis: Russia’s permanent seat lets it veto any move to hold it accountable. Similarly, the Syrian civil war, with its mass deaths and refugee crisis, dragged on for years without effective UN action.

Case for Reform

India’s frustration with the UN system is neither new nor unique. As the world’s most populous nation and a major economy, its absence from permanent Security Council membership is a glaring anomaly. A nuclear power, a spacefaring nation, the world’s largest democracy, and a leading contributor to UN peacekeeping, India still remains outside the core decision-making circle.

The UN’s current structure is a colonial relic, with a few nations still dominating global rules. India’s growing stature and the UN’s stalemate have led it to seek greater strategic success through forums like BRICS and SCO. By contrast, the UN often feels like a stage where India is asked to contribute but denied a role in writing the script.

UN reform has been debated for decades, from expanding the Security Council with new permanent members (India, Brazil, Germany, and an African representative) to curbing the veto. Yet efforts remain stalled, as the P5 have little incentive to dilute their power.

Without consensus among permanent members, reform remains a distant dream. Yet the status quo is increasingly untenable. As more nations lose faith, the global order may tilt further towards regional blocs, fragmenting the notion of a unified international community.

The real question is not whether the UN needs an overhaul or not. The real question is whether the UN can reform itself from within or whether it is time for the world to look for a new alternative.

Today’s world needs a new international body that can better reflect the current geopolitical, economic, and demographic realities. It should be based on a new framework built on principles of democratic representation, rotational leadership, transparency, and accountability.

The real danger lies not in reforming the global system but in doing nothing. As global politics shift in today’s multipolar world and the UN declines, we risk deeper polarisation, where international law is honoured only when convenient and cooperation yields to rhetoric. In this vacuum, powerful states or alliances will pursue their own interests, leaving weaker nations to navigate a fragmented, volatile order.

For countries like India, this is both a challenge and an opportunity. As a rising global power, India must assert its role not just as a reform-seeker but as a reform-leader, building consensus among like-minded and under-represented nations and proposing viable models for a more inclusive and effective international system.

(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)