Eighty years ago, in the aftermath of the most devastating war in human history, the nations of the world came together to forge a new compact — one that would seek to prevent future conflict, promote human dignity, and uphold the rule of law across borders. The United Nations was born not of triumph, but of tragedy; not as a monument to power, but as a mechanism for peace.
As someone who served the UN for nearly three decades — from 1978 to 2007 — I witnessed firsthand its evolution from a Cold War battleground to a post-Cold War laboratory of global cooperation. I saw the UN falter in Rwanda and Srebrenica, and rise to the occasion in East Timor and Namibia. I saw it struggle with bureaucracy and politics, yet persist in its mission to feed the hungry, shelter the displaced, and give voice to the voiceless. The UN is not perfect — nor was it ever meant to be —but it remains indispensable.
At 80, the UN stands at a crossroads. The world it was designed to serve has changed beyond recognition. The bipolar order of 1945 gave way to American unipolarity, which in turn has yielded to a fragmented, multipolar landscape. New powers have emerged, old alliances have frayed, and transnational challenges — from climate change to cyber warfare — defy the boundaries of traditional diplomacy. The UN must adapt or it risks becoming irrelevant.
A shifting global landscape and the erosion of consensus and UN principles
The most striking transformation in recent years has been the erosion of the postwar consensus. The institutions built to uphold liberal internationalism are under strain, not only from authoritarian regimes but also from within democracies themselves. Multilateralism is increasingly viewed with suspicion, and nationalism — once a force for liberation — is now often wielded as a cudgel against cooperation.
In this context, the UN’s foundational principles — sovereign equality, peaceful resolution of disputes, and collective security — are more vital than ever. Yet they are also more contested. The Security Council, for instance, remains frozen in time, reflecting the power dynamics of 1945 rather than the realities of 2025. Calls for reform have grown louder, especially from countries like India, Germany, Japan, Brazil, and South Africa, which rightly seek a seat at the table commensurate with their global standing.
India’s own case is compelling. As the world’s most populous nation and largest democracy, a major contributor to UN peacekeeping, and a rising economic power, India embodies the spirit of the UN Charter. Yet it remains outside the permanent membership of the Security Council — a glaring anomaly that undermines the Council’s legitimacy and effectiveness.
The UN’s enduring relevance and ongoing influence on international norms
Despite its shortcomings, the UN continues to play a vital role in global affairs. Its humanitarian agencies — the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, the World Food Programme, the United Nations Children’s Fund — deliver life-saving aid in conflict zones and disaster-stricken regions. Its peacekeepers, though stretched thin, provide a modicum of stability in fragile states. Its convening power allows nations to negotiate, deliberate, and sometimes even agree.
The UN’s normative influence is perhaps its most underappreciated asset. Through its declarations, treaties, and resolutions, it has helped shape global norms on human rights, gender equality, and sustainable development. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted in 2015, represent a bold vision for inclusive growth and planetary stewardship — one that transcends borders and ideologies.
Yet the UN’s ability to act is often constrained by the very member states it serves. When powerful nations flout international law or use their vetoes to shield allies (or worse, themselves), the UN is left hamstrung. When funding is politicized or withheld, its agencies struggle to deliver. The UN is not an abstract entity—it is a mirror of the world, reflecting its differences and inequities, and the will (or lack thereof) of its members.
The Security Council must be reformed to reflect contemporary realities
India’s foreign policy today is guided by the principle of strategic autonomy — a concept that resonates with the UN’s ethos of sovereign equality. As India navigates its relationships with the United States, China, and Russia, it seeks to preserve its freedom of action while contributing to global stability. This balancing act is not unique to India; many rising and middle powers are similarly choosing to protect their regional interests and resist entanglement in great-power rivalries.
This trend underscores the need for a more inclusive and representative multilateral system — one that accommodates diversity of perspective and plurality of power. The UN must become a forum not just for the powerful, but for the principled; not just for the aligned, but for the autonomous.
So what must be done? First, the Security Council must be reformed to reflect contemporary realities. This is not merely a matter of equity—it is a matter of efficacy. A Council that excludes key stakeholders cannot hope to command legitimacy or deliver results. I was present when then Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali declared in 1992 that Security Council reform must be achieved in time for the Golden Jubilee of the organisation in 1995. The 50th, 60th, 70th and 80th anniversaries have ticked by with no reform in sight. That is an unacceptable failure.
Second, the UN must invest in agility. Bureaucratic inertia has long plagued the organization, but in a world of fast-moving crises, responsiveness is key. Streamlining decision-making, empowering field operations, and embracing digital tools are essential steps.
Third, the UN must reclaim its moral voice. In an age of disinformation and polarization, the UN’s ability to speak truth to power—to uphold universal values and defend the vulnerable—is more important than ever. This requires courage, clarity, and consistency.
Finally, member states must recommit to the UN’s mission. The organization cannot function without political will and financial support. It needs champions, not just critics; partners, not just participants. Yet the UN’s ability to act is often constrained by the very states it serves. The United States, historically the largest financial contributor to the UN system, has in recent years withheld significant portions of its assessed dues — citing political disagreements and domestic priorities. These budgetary shortfalls have forced the Secretariat to implement painful staff reductions, freeze hiring, and scale back core programs. The irony is stark: the institution most needed to address global crises is being weakened by the very powers that helped create it.
The UN’s future will depend not on its past glories but capacity to evolve
The UN at 80 is neither a relic nor a panacea. It is a work in progress — a mirror of our collective aspirations and contradictions. Its failures are real, but so are its achievements. To dismiss the UN is to abandon the idea that humanity can govern itself through dialogue rather than domination.
As someone who spent nearly three decades within its halls, I remain convinced that the UN matters. It matters to the refugee seeking shelter, to the peacekeeper standing guard, to the diplomat negotiating a fragile truce. It matters to all of us who believe that cooperation is not weakness, and that justice is not a luxury.
In our fragmented world, the UN remains literally indispensable – the only platform that brings all the nations of the planet together in defence of our common humanity. It is both stage and actor – a stage on which Member States act, and an actor when they entrust the Secretary-General, his agencies and peacekeepers, to implement their decisions. The irony is that the actor is too often blamed for the failures of those on the stage. And yet, as Dag Hammarskjöld put it memorably: “the United Nations was not intended to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.” Sometimes all the UN can do is to prevent things from getting worse. And often, that is indeed enough, so we can all struggle on to fight another day.
The UN’s future will depend not on its past glories, but on its capacity to evolve. It must become more representative, more responsive, and more resilient. In doing so, it can continue to serve as a beacon — not of perfection, but of possibility. That may be the best that can be said about it as it turns 80 on October 24.
Shashi Tharoor is a Member of Parliament in India, chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs and former UN Under-Secretary-General.
