The UN is Dying — and That’s No Bad Thing

This weekend’s Guardian article claims that “The UN is our best defence against a third world war.” It’s a familiar line: the UN is broken, yes, but better than nothing. Without it, apparently, we risk global chaos.

Except the argument doesn’t follow. The article offers no meaningful defence of the UN — only a sentimental appeal to keep it limping along. But when we look honestly at the evidence, a far clearer picture emerges. The UN isn’t just ineffective. It is structurally corrupt, morally compromised, and increasingly irrelevant. Its decline shouldn’t worry us. If anything, it should be welcomed.

1. Humanitarian aid is often captured by bad actors

Take UNRWA, the UN’s agency for Palestinian refugees. It has:

• Employed members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad
• Allowed its schools to be used for weapons storage and terror tunnels
• Distributed textbooks that glorify violence and promote antisemitism

This isn’t a one-off scandal. It’s systemic. A January 2024 UN internal review found that twelve UNRWA staff were directly involved in Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel. These are not minor oversights — they are signs of moral rot.

More broadly, UN aid frequently flows through regimes and militias with no interest in human dignity or peace. The result? Western tax money is used to entrench power, fund violence, and leave the world no better than before.

2. The UN gives a voice to tyrants and a hammer to hypocrites

The idea of a forum for international dialogue is fine in theory. But in practice, the UN is captured by its worst members.

Authoritarian regimes like China, Iran, and Russia sit on UN human rights bodies. Meanwhile, Israel — a democracy under near-constant attack — is condemned more than all other nations combined.

This is not just political theatre. It’s an inversion of justice. When human rights violators run the human rights council, and terror sympathisers chair disarmament committees, you have to ask what the point is. Far from restraining evil, the UN gives it legitimacy.

3. Peacekeeping is broken — and sometimes abusive

We’re meant to believe that UN peacekeepers protect the vulnerable. But in many cases, they’ve done the opposite.

• In Rwanda, the UN stood by as genocide unfolded
• In Srebrenica, it handed civilians over to be killed
• In Haiti, peacekeepers introduced cholera and left behind a trail of sexual abuse
• In the Democratic Republic of Congo, there were widespread reports of exploitation by UN troops

These aren’t isolated failures. They are patterns — and they point to an institution more concerned with process than people.

4. Development goals look good — but do little

Supporters of the UN often point to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as signs of global progress. But while the language is polished, the outcomes are questionable.

The SDGs prioritise ideological language — “climate justice,” “gender equity,” “inclusive governance” — over actual measurable improvements in poverty or infrastructure. Worse, these frameworks can undermine national sovereignty and slow down the very capitalist reforms that have lifted billions out of poverty in Asia and beyond.

In reality, the biggest drivers of global development have been trade, markets, and local innovation — not centralised UN planning.

5. Reform is not an option — the structure is the problem

Some argue that the UN just needs reform. But that ignores the way it’s built.

• The Security Council gives veto power to Russia and China — effectively paralysing any response to real aggression
• The General Assembly works on a “one state, one vote” basis — allowing authoritarian regimes to dictate terms to democratic ones
• There is no serious mechanism to expel or punish bad actors

This isn’t a temporary problem. It’s structural. The UN is not failing in spite of its design — it’s failing because of it. Reform is not possible when the very nations committing abuses are the ones voting on the rules.

So what’s left?

Yes, global problems require cooperation. But the answer isn’t to prop up a system that empowers dictators and protects terror. Instead, we should be:

• Building alliances of democracies and like-minded nations
• Funding aid through accountable channels, not agencies captured by extremism
• Replacing UN peacekeeping with regional security partnerships
• Letting go of the myth that centralised global governance is the answer to every crisis

We don’t need the UN to solve global problems. In many cases, it’s part of the problem.

Conclusion

The Guardian warns that without the UN, we risk lawlessness. But in reality, the UN has already allowed lawlessness — in the name of diplomacy. It offers impunity to aggressors, cover to tyrants, and comfort to those who’d rather signal virtue than do good.

Let’s stop pretending it’s better than nothing. It isn’t. And its decline may finally open the door to something better.

Let it die.