In terms of global events and conflicts, the current state of the world is becoming increasingly more tenuous and unstable. There are numerous regions in the world, such as Palestine, Yemen, Ukraine and Guyana, where ongoing or potential conflicts pose a serious threat to world peace. An important criticism of these issues is the role the United Nations (UN) plays in such cases throughout the world and the negative attitude people have developed due to its strategic failures. Born at the end of the second World War, the main goal of the UN has been to prevent conflicts and promote the rights of all humans — however, despite its active role through its agencies and peacekeeping efforts, the UN faces the danger of becoming irrelevant in global politics in the face of growing cynicism and radicalism.

There are many reasons to put trust in an institution as crucial to international cooperation as the UN. Beyond the diplomatic aspect of the institution, it is one of the primary humanitarian organizations through which important dangers can be countered by subdivisions. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and similar branches have historically done invaluable humanitarian work in the fields of health, culture, safety and other crucial concerns. However, the UN’s goal of maintaining global peace is facing significant discontent due to its perceived powerlessness and uselessness in the face of rising threats.

This has consequently affected the public perception of the organization too, with public approval ratings of the UN, though having risen over the past decades, also reflecting the large group of voices which find the organization either inadequate or outright meaningless and ought to be dissolved. The main arguments for this view come from both the recent memory of COVID-19 and current geopolitical concerns on armed conflict around the world. In both cases, the UN has been seen as a bureaucratic, bloated, inefficient organization that can only serve as a hypocritical institution. In the case of the pandemic, this was notably due to public discontent toward measures taken to counter the spread of the disease and the economic impacts felt during that period. In the case of international politics, the opposition to the UN comes from its perceived lack of power over the interests of national governments.

The fact that the UN faces such an opposition toward its legitimacy is a major concern because it is one of the few institutions with the capacity to harbor diverse voices and oversee the important problems of the world. Close to 80 years after its creation, there must therefore be a path toward rethinking and enhancing the way in which the UN approaches and manages world events.

My major concern for the UN is its political legitimacy and diplomatic recognition. These are important aspects of the organization as UN membership is politically seen as a key metric for the legitimacy of a state and there are many past and ongoing world events in which conflicting sides have suffered from a lack of options for dialogue and diplomacy. Most importantly, there are cases where established governments have no way of interacting with the world because of not being able to access the UN, with cases such as the Cyprus problem and the war in Palestine being the two major examples. In such cases, the issue of a lack of international representation of the unrecognized sides in these events stifles public debate and fuels hostilities. Such escalations in violence are the historic reasons for why the predecessors of the UN, such as the League of Nations or the Congress of Vienna, failed in preserving peace due their lacking effectiveness in managing rising threats.

The UN is in essence a very large and complex organization which is simultaneously responsible for plenty of duties across the globe. As such, there really isn’t a simple solution or change that could completely alleviate these problems and preserve the institution. But as far as world peace and the principle of democracy is concerned, it is at this time absolutely vital to debate and develop ways to understand the potential shortcomings of the UN and allow world issues to be solved through dialogue rather than violence. Naturally, the core elements of the organization, such as the Security Council as well as the General Assembly, are good points to examine when it comes to what can possibly be reformed or changed when it comes to addressing its declining legitimacy. The rise of radical calls for dissolving the UN can only be addressed by making it broader in scope and representation.

The very fact that many political issues around the world continue to escalate toward brutal conflicts is a very solid justification for this aspiration. Beyond bureaucrats and diplomats, we, the people, must remember and think about this case when we see wars breaking out or countries falling into civil war. The UN was created first and foremost to counter tyranny and war by promoting democracy and freedom of speech — it must evolve in this new era to remain strong enough to fulfill that purpose.

Deniz Gulay is a freshman majoring in history.