How realism, not liberal optimism, now explains the UN’s predicament

The mood in New York was sombre. One world leader after another acknowledged that the post-1945 international system no longer holds. From Brazil’s President Lula da Silva to Finland’s President Alexander Stubb, the message was the same – the UN is still needed, but it can no longer deliver what it promises.

The financial crisis and institutional paralysis

The UN’s financial collapse is the single most overt indicator of its decline. The Trump administration has blocked almost all US contributions, leaving the organisation strapped for cash and forcing Guterres to reduce UN staff by a fifth and relocate hundreds of jobs to less expensive offices. Key agencies such as the World Food Programme have had to reduce operations, jeopardising relief operations in Gaza, Sudan and Ethiopia.

This crisis exposes an old paradox – the UN is most dependent on the member least willing to support it. Under President Donald Trump, the US has boycotted meetings on climate and development, refused even to pay obligatory dues. China, now the second-largest contributor, has acted cautiously, delaying payments and exploiting a vacuum to seek more influence, but without filling the shortfall. The upshot is paralysis. An institution that is too weak to lead and also too deeply embedded in global governance to be abandoned.

There is more to the issue than money; it is also structural. Realist scholars have long argued that international institutions live only at the behest of the leading power. When that power retreats or turns inwards, the system starts to collapse. The shift from a US-centric world order to one with multiple power centres has fundamentally altered the foundation upon which the UN was established.

Multipolarity that shatters consensus of the 1990s

The “age of multilateralism” that continued to operate even under US unipolarity post-1991 is over. Realism, not liberal optimism, now explains the UN’s predicament. Institutions reflect the balance of power, and as power spreads across multiple centres — Washington, Beijing, Brussels, and the Global South, cooperation becomes more difficult. 

The Security Council, which has remained the same since 1971, is evidence of this stalemate. Calls for reform — to enlarge its membership and restrain the veto power of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — echoed throughout the General Assembly’s 80th session. But of course, everyone knows nothing will change, because those who would have to approve it are also the ones who benefit from the status quo.

The multipolarity of the present has shattered the consensus of the 1990s. Russia and China are blocking the West over Ukraine. The US vetoes resolutions on Gaza. Middle powers like India and Brazil call for change but tread cautiously. The UN is, then, stuck in the middle, between the Realist logic of power balancing and Liberal belief that institutions can bind it. But for now, it is Realism that has the upper hand.

Wars in Gaza and Ukraine — and beyond

It was the wars in Gaza and Ukraine that set UNGA80’s tone and revealed anew the UN’s inability to act. President Trump’s speech was blunt and confrontational. He said the UN was offering “empty words” and derided its failures in peacekeeping, and claimed that “the world’s problems are being solved outside these walls”. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and several European leaders echoed a similar frustration, denouncing it as an organisation that “issues statements but takes no action”.

The Gaza crisis, meanwhile, yielded a symbolic breakthrough and not much more. France and Saudi Arabia convened a conference that reiterated the two-state idea and led to the New York Declaration. It had more than 150 countries backing it, and some — including the UK, Canada and Australia — recognised the State of Palestine. But neither Israel nor the US were in attendance at the gathering, and Prime Minister Netanyahu rejected a Palestinian state. For Palestinians, it was a moral victory with no tangible outcomes. Whether President Trump’s 20-point peace plan will give the Palestinians a state and security is still to be seen.

Yet the General Assembly was not entirely subsumed by war. On its sidelines, the Climate Summit drew representatives from 121 countries. China has pledged to reduce its emissions by 2025 and cut them by 7 to 10 per cent, but the mood was cautious. Many have warned that the Paris Agreement was losing momentum in the absence of US commitment.

Other major concerns discussed were artificial intelligence, nuclear proliferation and the debt crisis in the developing countries. A women-led initiative on disarmament endeavoured to link nuclear risks with climate change and technology governance — an effort to bring some coherence to global policymaking.

In theory, such efforts are representative of what constructivist scholars emphasise — that institutions continue to matter as spaces for the shaping of ideas and norms. But in practice, as Realists are quick to note, real power lies with those who own the resources and the arms.

India’s voice: Reform and responsibility

There was a measured assertiveness in what India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said at the UNGA80. His message was clear – if the UN wanted to restore credibility, meaningful reform was necessary, and the Global South deserved a stronger voice in shaping global decisions.

Without naming Pakistan, he criticised selective approaches to terrorism, saying, “The world cannot fight terrorism selectively. Those who shelter, fund, and justify it must be held accountable.” The remark reflected India’s growing frustration with the UN’s failure to act on its own counterterrorism resolutions.

Jaishankar also reiterated India’s call to expand the Security Council, proposing permanent seats for Asia, Africa, and Latin America. “The world of 2025 cannot be governed by the institutions of 1945,” he said, echoing a sentiment shared by Brazil and Nigeria.

India’s position at this year’s session balanced realism with principle. It urged that global institutions should mirror today’s power realities while maintaining faith in the idea of collective action. India’s growing diplomatic role — through the G20, BRICS, and regional forums — strengthens its argument. It now presents itself as a bridge between the developed and developing worlds, a role that combines moral purpose with strategic interest.

From disarray to reinvention

The UN’s inability to stop wars or handle crises has rekindled old scepticism. Is it still relevant? Can it be reformed? Or has it devolved into a forum for speeches rather than solutions? Theory provides explanation, not answers:

— Realism explains why the UN struggles to enforce peace — power, not principle, often decides outcomes. 

— Liberal institutionalism makes the case for its survival —  even flawed cooperation is better than anarchy. 

— Constructivism reminds us that symbols still matter — meeting, speaking, contesting keep alive the idea of a shared world, even when practice falls short.

This, then, is the UN’s enduring paradox. It is both indispensable and ineffective. It often fails, yet the world cannot do without it. The UN may have lost its relevance, but it is not yet entirely irrelevant. It remains the only forum where every state has a voice and where diplomacy endures even when power politics prevail. For smaller states, it is still a shield against irrelevance.

The 80th anniversary of the UN was less a celebration than a reckoning. The body created in 1945 to prevent another world war now struggles to remain solvent and relevant. Its crisis is both financial and moral — a shortfall of funds and a collapse of shared purpose. Realists may predict its decline, but the persistence of global interdependence ensures that even weakened institutions matter.

As Secretary-General Guterres said in his closing remarks, “Our task is not to restore a lost order, but to imagine cooperation anew.” The challenge for the UN’s ninth decade is to survive not through nostalgia for 1945 but by rethinking what multilateralism means in a divided world.

The UN may be weakened, but history suggests it isn’t withering away. Its continued existence rests on whether the great powers still believe, or can be convinced to believe, that there are some problems which cannot be solved by force or wealth alone. And so for now, the UN remains what it has long been — an imperfect but indispensable mirror of the world it represents, reflecting its divisions and a continuous hope that diplomacy still matters.

Post read questions

At the UNGA80, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar asserted that restoring the UN’s credibility hinges on meaningful reform and greater representation for the Global South. Assess this stance in light of India’s growing diplomatic role. 

The reform process in the UN remains unresolved because of the delicate imbalance of East and West and the entanglement of the US vs. Russo-Chinese alliance. Examine and critically evaluate the East-West policy confrontations in this regard.

The shift from a US-centric world order to one with multiple power centres has fundamentally altered the foundation upon which the UN was established. Comment. 

Realist scholars have long argued that international institutions live only at the behest of the leading power. When that power retreats or turns inwards, the system starts to collapse. How does this reflect on the UN’s predicament?

Do you think that the challenge for the UN in its ninth decade is to survive not through nostalgia for 1945 but by rethinking what multilateralism means in a divided world?

(The author is the Director of the MMAJ Academy of International Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.)

Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.

Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.

Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.