【Text by Observer Net Columnist Bao Shaoshan】

Introduction

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the United Nations. Compared to its predecessor, the League of Nations, this transnational organization has witnessed more storms and has endured for eight decades to reach today. This longevity is crucial because it demonstrates that humanity's collective desire to transcend pure national power and establish some form of international order has never faded.

But "longevity" does not equal success. Critics point out that the United Nations has failed to prevent wars, clearly lacks "deterrence," and is prone to paralysis due to great power rivalry. From this perspective, the United Nations is less like a guardian of peace and more like a stage for political showmanship—especially in today's era.

General Assembly Hall, Photo: UN official website

The United Nations failed to end the Ukraine war: In fact, even the Minsk Agreement approved by the Security Council in 2015 could not prevent the outbreak of war, and Western powers—through Merkel and Hollande's frankness—ultimately admitted they initially lacked sincerity and respect for the Security Council. As for the genocide currently unfolding in Gaza, the United States repeatedly used its veto power to block the United Nations' ability to constrain Israel, making the universal condemnation by the international community futile.

However, such evaluations of the current failures of the United Nations often contain an idealization of the past, implying that the United Nations was once more effective in resisting turbulence. In reality, the limitations of the United Nations have been present throughout its history. If the United Nations cannot prevent conflicts in 2025, it is because its structure has always been constrained by the distribution of material power within the global order. Its obvious failure is not a unique contemporary dilemma, but a structural constraint that has existed since its inception.

A study by American scholars Monica Duffy Toft and Sidita Kushi in their 2022 book "Dying by the Sword" shows that between 1946 and 1990, the United States launched an average of 2.4 military interventions per year; between 1991 and 2019, this number rose to an average of 3.7 per year, while the United Nations was powerless.

To understand this long-standing sense of helplessness, we need to abandon the non-historical assumptions of realist international relations theory—that institutions are meaningless in the face of anarchy and national interests—and instead conduct a historical analysis of the distribution of economic and military power since 1945.

We must also recognize that the United Nations was designed as a state-centered organization, while more urgent challenges in today's world have increasingly crossed borders. Although nation-states are crucial, the scale of global challenges is so complex that single-dimensional mechanisms like the United Nations struggle to meet the practical coordination required. Only by recognizing this reality can we understand why the United Nations has struggled for most of its development history, and why in today's changing circumstances, multilateralism may be reborn rather than abandoned.

Historical Material Conditions and the Constraints of the United Nations

Although the UN Charter embodies the ambitions of the major powers at the time, the institution was not born in a vacuum of sovereignty equality, but rather in a world where economic, military, and political power were vastly unequal. Its design and operation have always reflected this inequality.

1) Post-war Order and US Economic Hegemony (1945-1950s)

The establishment of the United Nations coincided with a special moment in global history: the United States enjoyed unparalleled dominance. In 1945, the United States, which emerged from the ruins of World War II, had an industrial base that not only remained intact but continued to expand, accounting for nearly half of the global industrial output. Its financial institutions underpinned the Bretton Woods system, and its military power, due to the monopoly on atomic bombs (until 1949, when the Soviet Union gained nuclear capability), was unmatched.

The UN Charter reflected these realities. While the preamble and the General Assembly provisions embodied universal ideals, the Security Council institutionalized a hierarchy. Under the ambitions of U.S. hegemony, the United Nations could never become a neutral world government (fairly speaking, no one envisioned it playing this role); or more accurately, it could never become a global governance framework that prioritized international law over hegemonic politics. The international law within the framework of the United Nations has increasingly been weakened by the convenience of the so-called "rules-based international order." The United States attempts to influence others through the "rules-based international order," while reserving the right to act on its own.

2) The Bipolar Cold War and the Paralysis of the Security Council (1950s-1989)

The outbreak of the Cold War further compressed the operational space of the United Nations. As Washington and Moscow fell into ideological, military, and economic confrontation, the Security Council became paralyzed due to frequent use of veto power. The Korean War was a rare exception—only because the Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council meeting at the time, allowing the resolution proposed by the United States to send UN forces to Korea to pass.

For the next four decades, the United Nations was largely excluded from "high politics" issues. Direct confrontation between East and West took place outside its framework, while proxy wars spread across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The United Nations failed to prevent wars, and instead was reduced to a reactive role: sending peacekeeping forces to frozen conflict areas, coordinating humanitarian aid, and promoting norm-setting in human rights and development. During this process, the West, with its unchecked political and economic power, promoted liberal superiority, packaging its "values" as "universal values." As for the security functions of the United Nations? It was always bound by the chains of bipolar competition.

3) Decolonization and Expansion of Member States (1960s-1970s)

The wave of decolonization dramatically increased the number of UN members. Dozens of new countries in Asia and Africa joined, changing the balance of power in the General Assembly agenda. This both enhanced the legitimacy of the United Nations as a global forum and brought new fractures. Many newly independent countries lacked economic sovereignty and still relied on former colonial powers and global financial institutions.

Yet they saw the United Nations as a platform to push for systemic change. The Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77 advocated for a New International Economic Order, calling for trade, investment, and financial reforms to correct structural inequalities. However, these demands clashed with the established interests in the Security Council and the Bretton Woods system. The United Nations formed a dual structure: the General Assembly spoke boldly, while the Security Council operated conservatively. The organization again found itself constrained—not because of "anarchy," but due to the asymmetry of economic development worldwide.

The United Nations is essentially a state-centered institution, originally designed to let sovereign states represent the international order. But the core issues driving decolonization—structural dependency, unequal trade terms, cross-border capital flows—were inherently transnational. The United Nations lacked the structural capacity to address economic dimensions of sovereignty, leading the General Assembly's bold declarations to often exceed practical effectiveness, becoming empty rhetoric.

4) The Unipolar Moment and Liberal Hegemony (1991-2008)

The end of the Cold War once renewed hopes for the United Nations. With Moscow's decline and Washington's rise, it seemed the United Nations could finally take decisive action. But in practice, during the 1990s, the United States had already seen the United Nations as a tool, not a source of empowerment.

The Gulf War in 1991, although authorized by the United Nations, was essentially a U.S.-led military operation; in the Kosovo War of 1999, NATO completely bypassed the United Nations; and the Iraq War in 2003 completely abandoned the United Nations' legitimacy, launching an invasion despite opposition in the Security Council. During this period, the United Nations became a decoration for U.S. hegemonic legitimacy, and whenever it constrained hegemonic will, the United Nations was ignored.

At the same time, there were unprecedentedly frequent military intervention actions. The United Nations not only failed to prevent wars, but was also marginalized by hegemonic powers who claimed to maintain the "rules-based international order." The concept of the "rules-based international order" gradually replaced the idea of international law, effectively diluting the functions of the United Nations under the dominance of U.S. hegemony.

5) The Transition to Multipolarity and Parallel Multilateralism (Since 2008)

The 2008 global financial crisis symbolically ended the U.S.'s unquestionable hegemony. Since then, China's rise, Russia's revival, and the increasing voice of the Global South have continuously eroded the unipolar system. Economic sanctions and tariffs, traditional tools of U.S. coercion, are being gradually mitigated by South-South cooperation and supply chain diversification.

At the same time, a new network of multilateral mechanisms has already taken shape: the BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, regional trade agreements, and financial arrangements in a non-dollar system are actively developing. These institutions are not intended to replace the United Nations, but clearly indicate that countries can solve collective problems without relying on the UN framework. Symbolically, the United Nations has recently formally adopted a resolution (UN General Assembly resolution on September 5, 2025) to cooperate with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, acknowledging the legitimacy of these mechanisms.

On September 5, 2025, the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly passed by a large majority a resolution proposed by China, "Cooperation between the United Nations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization." The photo shows Ambassador Geng Shuang, the acting head of the Chinese mission to the United Nations, introducing the draft resolution at the plenary meeting of the General Assembly.

This reflects the reality of fragmented governance: global issues are actually addressed through overlapping mechanisms and institutions, rather than managed by a single hierarchical authority. Therefore, the United Nations is less like a world government (a concept that is questionable in normative terms) and more like a node in a decentralized governance ecosystem. From this perspective, its weak position is not only due to historical U.S. dominance but also stems from the inherent nature of the dispersal of power in the transnational era.

Reasons for the Weakness of the United Nations

Realist thinkers like John Mearsheimer have called the United Nations' experience a testament to the "tragedy of great power politics." They argue that transnational institutions cannot overcome the anarchic logic of international relations—the state will always prioritize survival and power. Patrick Porter, in his work "The False Promise of Liberalism," argues that although the liberal order is hypocritical (enforced through coercion rather than consensus), it is the "realistic optimal solution."

These arguments are undoubtedly resonant, as they sharply expose the normative disguise of Western global governance claims. However, their persuasiveness is incomplete, as they imply that transnational cooperation is merely an exception proving the universality of the anarchy rule. Such arguments are based on ontological assumptions of anarchy and non-historical concepts of national rationality—a specific rationality concept that itself originates from the ontology of anarchy.

In this framework, states are forced to maximize power through a zero-sum perspective: only by suppressing others (means) can survival (purpose) be achieved. Mearsheimer even asserts that states would prioritize survival over prosperity, as if the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.

Yet this purpose-means paradigm is not naturally given. Pursuing survival can also be understood through a cooperative security perspective: security and prosperity here constitute a symbiotic relationship. Game theory and mainstream realism theory both rest on the foundation of "rational choice," yet they indicate that actors (here, states) can optimize goals (survival) through cooperation (positive-sum) rather than zero-sum actions.

In repeated communication interactions, cooperation often emerges spontaneously; those who betray will eventually be excluded. Multilateralism is not futile, but has path dependence. The real issue is not anarchy, but asymmetry: when a powerful entity can ignore rules, institutions tend to decay; when power is more balanced, cooperation becomes a rational and sustainable choice.

The weakness of the United Nations is not evidence of the futility of institutions, but reflects its material conditions of operation: U.S. hegemony after 1945, the bipolar Cold War structure, the asymmetry during the decolonization process, and the distortion of the unipolar system—all of these constrained the United Nations' potential.

What makes the United Nations appear fragile is not only the balance of power, but also the fundamental mismatch between state-centered mechanisms and the transnational nature of governance issues—issues such as capital flows, ecological crises, global pandemics, and cybersecurity all transcend national borders. Realist theory has precisely overlooked this structural transformation.

The Current Era of Multipolarity and Prospects for Reform

The world today presents new possibilities. The United States can no longer act recklessly in every area of global affairs. The balance of military power has become more complex; economic strength is shifting toward Asia; the ability of the Global South to resist Northern pressures is increasingly strengthening.

This new格局 is giving rise to multipolar multilateralism. Mechanisms such as the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization uphold the spirit of collective security and cooperation envisioned by the UN Charter, but adopt a more flexible and de-hierarchical organizational form. They demonstrate that countries have strong incentives to cooperate in energy, finance, security, and infrastructure areas outside the U.S.-dominated framework. ASEAN indicates that transnational institutions based on consensus can not only survive but also play a constructive role in reconciling conflicting interests, often by transforming differences into consensus.

The concept of a "governance mosaic" has become central to rethinking a new paradigm for international governance in the 21st century. We should not conclude that the United Nations has failed simply because it is no longer the sole arbiter of the global order. Instead, it should operate as a component within a broader institutional network, addressing specific dimensions of transnational governance. The challenge today lies in reforming the United Nations so that it can play a core coordinating role in this mosaic structure, rather than being completely marginalized.

The United Nations itself urgently needs reform. The current structure of the Security Council, which excludes Africa, India, and Latin America from permanent membership, is unsustainable; the veto system exacerbates institutional paralysis. Although reform is difficult, without change, the United Nations risks being swept away by the very multilateralism it should promote.

China's recent "Global Governance Initiative" points to an important path. It commits to upholding multilateralism, neutrality, and common security—principles that are consistent with the UN Charter but often neglected. By combining UN reform with broader institutional innovation, the initiative demonstrates a possibility: in the process of reviving multilateralism, avoid discarding both the essence and the dross of the United Nations.

Areas Where the United Nations Can Play a Role

If global governance is better understood as a multi-layered mosaic rather than a centralized system, then the future of the United Nations lies not in becoming an ultra-national authority it never sought to be (such as the EU), but in serving as a top-level framework within a broader institutional network.

This means that while UN reform is necessary, it remains insufficient. Even if the Security Council expands its size, the veto system is revised, and representation becomes more equitable, the United Nations will still be a state-centric institution constrained by its structure. True innovation will lie in how the United Nations interacts with existing specialized, functional, and regional multilateral institutions within the global order.

Differing from the EU, which erodes member states' sovereignty in financial and monetary fields, new multilateralism must and should respect sovereignty. The core is not to replace national autonomy with a single authority, but to establish sustainable coordination mechanisms and problem-solving platforms in areas where national actions are insufficient and cooperation yields significant benefits.

This network architecture has already taken shape: the BRICS coordinate economic and trade affairs, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization focuses on regional security and extends to economic infrastructure (especially energy and transportation), ASEAN promotes economic integration, and the African Union proposes development plans. Of course, there are many more examples. Each institution plays a role in specific areas, maintaining national sovereignty and providing functional solutions. What they lack is universal legitimacy and effective connecting links.

On the 16th, Sun Lei, Deputy Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations, stated at the ad hoc working group meeting on the "UN 80th Anniversary Reform Initiative" that China is willing to work with all countries and the UN Secretariat to continuously improve the work of the United Nations and promote global governance towards a more just and reasonable direction, playing a constructive role.

This is where the United Nations can play a role. By providing normative legitimacy, convening authority, and inter-institutional coordination capabilities, the United Nations can transform the current fragmented governance puzzle into a more coherent ecosystem. It does not need to dominate or centralize, but needs to empower and link. In this sense, the path to the revival of the United Nations is not to emulate institutions like the EU or the European Central Bank that deprive nations of their economic sovereignty, but to assist in building a multi-tiered, diverse, and sovereignty-respecting multilateral network.

This revitalization vision does not position the United Nations as a failed world government, but as a cornerstone of the arch of multilateral cooperation. Its strength lies not in monopolizing governance, but in coordinating the legitimacy of different levels and functions.

Conclusion

The 80-year-old United Nations is still deeply entrenched in difficulties: it has failed to prevent wars, has been marginalized by hegemonic countries, and its reform process is arduous. Yet it is ultimately a product of its time, shaped by the material conditions of power distribution since 1945. To declare its failure as realists do not only ignores the historical specificity of its limitations, but also overlooks its original intent.

The current situation is changing. The unipolar system is giving way to emerging multipolarity, with China becoming a key node capable of withstanding a resurgence of Western unilateralism. The Global South is gaining greater autonomy. Parallel multilateral institutions have demonstrated the possibility of cooperation. These trends bring not an opportunity to abandon the United Nations, but a chance to reshape it.

The challenges facing the United Nations stem both from great power politics and its institutional design. A state-centered institution cannot alone manage transnational processes. But within the overlapping network of institutions, the United Nations can still play an important role. More than 190 countries have invested political capital in it. Abandoning the United Nations at this time would be tantamount to wasting eight decades of accumulated efforts. The real challenge lies in reforming the United Nations so that it aligns with the realities of a multipolar world and is embedded in the existing collective security and cooperative governance networks.

The United Nations has always been shackled. But in an era of reshaping power structures, it may yet be reborn. Its future does not depend on clinging to the past, but on adapting to the material realities of the present.

This article is an exclusive contribution from Observer Net. The content is purely the author's personal opinion and does not represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited; otherwise, legal responsibility will be pursued. Follow Observer Net WeChat guanchacn to read interesting articles daily.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7554195109575672370/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking on the [top/vote] button below.