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 (UN) 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 first-hand 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 risk irrelevance.
A shifting global landscape
The most striking transformation in recent years has been the erosion of the post-war 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. But 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 such as 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. Despite all this, it remains outside the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) — a glaring anomaly that undermines the Council’s legitimacy and effectiveness.
Despite its shortcomings, the UN continues to play a vital role in global affairs. Its humanitarian agencies — UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), World Food Programme (WFP), UNICEF — 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 that 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 politicised 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 challenge of strategic autonomy
India’s foreign policy has long emphasised sovereignty and strategic autonomy, resisting alignment with any single power bloc. This approach has gained renewed relevance in a world marked by great-power competition and regional instability. Alongside other rising and middle powers, India seeks to protect regional interests without being drawn into rivalries among the United States, China or Russia.
This posture reflects a broader critique of global governance structures, particularly the UNSC. India has consistently called for reform that reflects contemporary realities — one that is not merely powerful but principled, inclusive and representative. The current system, shaped by post-war hierarchies, remains inequitable and unresponsive to diverse perspectives.
A reimagined global order must embrace plurality — not just of power, but of experience and voice. India’s vision is not of dominance, but of dignity: a world where sovereignty is respected, cooperation is valued and institutions are shaped by the many, not the few.
So what must be done? First, the UNSC must be reformed to reflect contemporary realities. This is not merely a matter of equity. It is a matter of efficacy. A UNSC that excludes key stakeholders cannot hope to command legitimacy or deliver results. Second, the UN must invest in agility. 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 polarisation, 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 organisation cannot function without political will and financial support. It needs champions, not just critics; partners, not just participants. Budgetary shortfalls, thanks to defaults by the U.S. and others of their dues, have forced the Secretariat to implement painful staff reductions, freeze hiring, and scale back core programmes. The irony is stark: the institution most needed to address global crises is being weakened by the very powers that helped create it.
A mandate for the future as renewal, reform
The UN at 80 is neither a relic nor a panacea. It is a work in progress — a reflection 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 much of his adult life in its service, 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.
The United Nations remains an indispensable symbol — not of perfection, but of possibility. As Dag Hammarskjöld said, it was meant “not to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell”. The UN is both stage and actor: a stage for its member-states, and an actor when they empower it to defend our common humanity. Ironically, the actor is often blamed for the failures of the stage. As it marks its 80th anniversary, its challenge is to become more representative, responsive, and resilient in a world that needs principled global cooperation more than ever.
Shashi Tharoor is a fourth-term Member of Parliament (Congress) for Thiruvananthapuram, chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs and a former United Nations Under-Secretary-General
