A world without the UN?

As the World War I or WWI ended, the victors of the war made the Covenant of the League of Nations, in short, League, in January 1920, wherein the Treaty of Versailles was included. The mission was to maintain world peace. But it failed in its mission because the vanquished in the WWI was treated like dirt. Add to that the lack of an army to enforce peace, selfishness of European powers, especially Britain and France. Also, absence of the USA in the League was a factor. Then came the economic meltdown, the Great Depression (1929-1939).Together, these factors militated against the success of the League's peace mission. The ultimate result was the World War II (WW II). So, not to repeat the failures of the League, the United Nations was formed at the end of the WWII on October 24, 1945.Before that the representatives of the world's 50 countries drafted the UN Charter by the end of June of that year. The Big Four Allied Powers -- the USA, the United Kingdom, Soviet Union and China played the main role in establishing the UN. Then-president of the USA, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was the guiding spirit in the establishment of this new world forum, UN, for lasting peace. Some eighty (80) years have passed in the meantime. Though there was no all-out  wars like the WWI and WWII during the years since the launching of the UN, can we say that there was peace during this period? True, conventional wars, both big and small, have been happening, yet these have not turned into a larger conflagration, a nuclear war.

The credit for that does not go to the UN. In truth, the credit goes to the Cold War era doctrine of 'Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)'. In other words, the fear was that in case a war broke out between the two nuclear superpowers, the US and then-Soviet Union, that would be the end of humanity.  So, there was no WWIII in between 1945 and today. But that was one kind of relative peace in that human race and with it the entire animal kingdom is still surviving. But when it comes to the so-called post-colonial developing world, it has always been in a state of war. Going by the studies from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) of Sweden, between 250 and 300 small and big conflicts including civil wars as well as intensive wars have taken place till 2023. And the world has been experiencing the highest number of such conflicts/wars (over 130) between 2024 and now. Though the UN's success in preventing or stopping such wars/conflicts has been rather limited, often due to the veto power exercised by the five permanent Security Council members, it (the UN) has, according to an estimate, been engaged in some 70 peacekeeping missions and brokered peace settlements so far. However, in most cases, the UN's peace initiatives were hamstrung by the non-cooperation of the big powers.  But now, the UN's existence as a world forum where at least the member counties could talk peace is in doubt. This is due mainly to the United States under president Donald Trump's move to withdraw from the different UN bodies. Through a presidential memorandum signed on January 7, 2026, the US has started the process of withdrawing from 31 UN-related agencies. President Trump has even questioned the relevance of the UN. Last month (January 2026), he even launched his brainchild, the so-called "Board of Peace", which, critics say, is an alternative to or rival of the UN. 

Notably, the US has been  the biggest provider of funds to the UN programmes including its contribution of 22 per cent (of the total contributions to the UN) as mandatory fee. But neither have other big funders to the UN including China, Russian Federation, the UK, France and Germany, cleared their mandatory contributions, either in full or on time. As could be learnt, at the end of 2025, the unpaid contributions to the UN amounted to US$1.6 billion. Interestingly, except the big contributors, more than 150 members of the UN, reportedly, cleared their dues. But that is not enough to run the UN's programmes. Under the circumstances, how can the UN survive, let alone run its peace and humanitarian missions? It is against this backdrop that the UN secretary general, Antonio Guterres, had urged the UN's member nations to pay their mandatory contributions by January 30, 2026. At the same time, he warned that unless the dues were cleared, the organization would be in danger of going bankrupt as it would run out of money by July, 2026. In this context, Mr. Guterres in a letter written to the member countries stated, "Either all member states honour their obligations to pay in full and on time -- or member states must fundamentally overhaul our financial rules to prevent an imminent financial collapse". To all appearances, the UN, too, is following in its predecessor, the League of Nation's footsteps.

But what does that mean for the world peace? A state of total chaos! Worse yet, the (nuclear) arms limitations treaties that bound the two superpowers in the Cold War era have either been terminated or suspended. Only one such treaty, the New START Treaty is still in force. In this treaty, the term 'START' stands for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. But this nuclear arms control treaty will also expire on February 4 (Wednesday).

Now that the UN is already largely dysfunctional, the treaties between the two major nuclear powers, the USA and Russia, to rein in the resurgence of the pre-1970 era of unbridled nuclear arms race, being about over, what is in store for humanity in the near future? Given the failure or apathy of the of big powers to settle the wars in Ukraine or in the Middle East, particularly the one raging in Palestine for decades, the fear of those triggering a devastating nuclear war remains. There is also the possibility of a big war breaking out between Iran and the US plus Israel any time now. The entire world seems to be teetering on the brink. So, the UN cannot be allowed to die. Most importantly, for the communications between the major nuclear powers to continue, the Security Council of the UN must remain functional. 

sfalim.ds@gmail.com