A Horrifying World Without the United Nations

The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres recently alarmed the world by stating that our most important global intergovernmental organization, established with the specific mission of maintaining international peace and security, faces “imminent financial collapse” and could run out of money in less than six months! The uncertainty surrounding member payments remains acute.

A System on the Brink

Member states owed $1.57 billion in unpaid dues as of the end of 2025, more than double what was owed a year earlier. By halting funding, we are handing a death sentence to the only global institution dedicated exclusively to peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. And in so many cases, preventing anarchy from taking hold.

In 2023, the entire UN system operated on $67.6 billion in total funding. By contrast, in 2024, global military spending reached $2.4 trillion. Which begs the question; are our elected officials not willing to allocate even a fraction of global military spending to sustaining multilateral peace efforts? The U.S. alone owes $2.19 billion, which is 95% of the regular UN budget debt, yet, at the same time, that is only 0.24% of its $901 billion military budget. The statement we are making about our priorities is frightening; and that is that we are willing to spend on waging wars yet, drag our feet when it comes to funding the United Nations that, imperfect as it may be, at least works to save innocent lives.

The UN does far more humanitarian work than it is often credited for. Notwithstanding, there are leaders trying to sideline it to pursue their own bilateral agreements. For example, Trump’s dystopian Gaza Peace Plan which we believe will neither work nor last.

The Politics of Multilateralism

Donald Trump, who is 79 years old and has never believed in the rule of law or an international order,  recently set up  “Board of Peace,”  whose self-prescribed charter designated him as judge, jury, executioner, money handler and anything else he might desire of the Board of Peace.  And if that’s not shocking enough; appointed himself its lifetime chairman.

In a January 2026 interview with The New York Times, Donald Trump stated unequivocally that his “own morality” and “own mind” are the only limits on his power. Oblivious to any conflict of interest, whether real or perceived, Trump invited some 60 countries to join. Regrettably, few of the countries that have signed up for the board are democracies.

Leaders who believe in and embrace the concept of unaccountable power must be understandably very pleased with the current erosion of American moral and political standing.

The UN’s Failures — And Its Limits

It is true that the UN let the world down when it mattered most. Critics argue that veto powers within the Security Council obstructed meaningful intervention. Be it Rwanda or Sudan, Syria or Yemen, Ukraine or Gaza, civilians suffered while the UN’s hands were tied by self-serving, never-ending votes which resulted in Security Council vetoes. But this is a structural flaw in the founding charter rather than the will, intent or motivation of the organization.

The Reform Question

The debate, however, should not be framed as blind defense versus outright rejection. The UN requires reform — particularly in Security Council representation, veto limitations, and funding mechanisms.

What History Teaches Us

So, why hold on to an organization that failed to respond effectively in conflicts historically? From 1914 to 1945, two world wars claimed around 85 million lives. Since the UN’s creation in 1945, there has been no direct war between major nuclear powers. Even with thousands of nukes at the ready, the United States and the Soviet Union have thankfully never pulled the trigger during the 45 years of Cold War. Today, despite Russia’s war in Ukraine, NATO has stayed out of direct combat. Meanwhile, the rivalry between the U.S. and China keeps unfolding not through open conflict, but rather through the deployment of soft power.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, the world was on the edge of nuclear disaster. Then, UN Secretary-General U Thant worked behind the scenes, giving US President John F. Kennedy and USSR leader Nikita Khrushchev a narrow window in which to pull-back from the brink. The UN did not solve the crises, but it was certainly instrumental in offering both sides a way to back-away without losing face.

When the UN Leaves

Nevertheless, we have seen what UN absence looks like. In 1994, when the UN withdrew from Rwanda, the genocide accelerated. When they pulled out of Somalia in 1995, warlords took over. In Mali, once the mission ended in 2023, armed groups quickly took over. The same pattern follows in Congo and Haiti; when the UN leaves, instability often intensifies. Thus, the lesson is clear: UN presence does not guarantee peace, but UN absence, more often than not, ushers in something far worse.

The Humanitarian Lifeline

Unfortunately, the international community turns a blind eye to the UN agencies carrying out crucial humanitarian work. In 2024, the World Food Program fed over 124 million people, providing food in war-torn regions and areas suffering from famine; places private companies avoid because there is no profit. If WFP is forced to shut down, it will undoubtedly disrupt food assistance to millions.

By the end of 2024, 123.2 million people were forcibly displaced. So, who steps in to ensure that they are treated like human beings with inherent rights, who deserve legal protection? That is where the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) comes in. When COVID-19 hit, and the world scrambled for vaccines, the World Health Organization (WHO) jumped in to distribute 1.83 billion vaccine doses to 146 countries. Without these UN agencies, crises become deadly, leaving the world’s most vulnerable to suffer.

Preventing the Next Nuclear Arms Race

Now think about what the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) does? Countries such as Japan and South Korea have the technical and cerebral capability to develop nuclear weapons. Yet they hold back. Why? Because IAEA inspections give them confidence that their rivals are not secretly racing ahead. It was the IAEA that exposed Iran’s secret nuclear program. Without IAEA oversight, the risk of nuclear proliferation will rise sharply. Nations will face a dangerous choice; begin developing their nuclear weapons, or blindly trust that their adversaries have not already begun developing their own nuclear weapons.

If Not the UN, Then What?

So, what if the UN closes its doors, what takes its place? Nothing. No backup plan exists. Is the UN perfect? Far from it. It is frustratingly slow, bureaucratic, and it fails in situations where and when we desperately need it to succeed. But let’s be real; the question is not whether we can swap the UN for something better. At present, there is no viable alternative global institution capable of coordinating at the same scale.

A World Governed by Power Alone

Today, the UN is not only failing from lack of funds, but also because our governments have failed to support it and we have forgotten its raison d’etre. By allowing the United Nations to fail, we will surely face a harsher truth and will need to brace ourselves for a world where the powerful make the rules, and everyone else bears the consequences — a world where might is right and only force will now rule the planet.