The United Nations at 80: Reform or Relic?

The United Nations at 80: Reform or Relic? by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East It is the end of September and once again, world leaders are gathering in New York for the annual UN assembly meeting. Prime Minister Mark Carney represented Canada at the meeting, where he engaged in several good discussions with world leaders. As the United Nations marks its 80th anniversary, the question confronting the world is brutally simple: will this institution adapt to a radically changed century, or will it stumble into irrelevance like the League of Nations before it? The UN was born from the ashes of World War II. Its architecture—especially the Security Council—was designed to reflect the power balance of 1945. However, 2025 is not 1945. The Soviet Union is gone. The colonial empires have crumbled. The United States is no longer the unquestioned hegemon. Rising powers like India, Brazil, and Nigeria clamor for recognition, while transnational threats—climate change, pandemics, cyber conflict—demand collective action no single country can manage. And yet the UN clings to a structure frozen in amber, incapable of addressing the crises it was created to solve. Consider the Security Council. The veto power wielded by its five permanent members is the single most glaring anachronism in international politics. It is no longer a guarantor of stability; it is a straitjacket. Russia blocks action on Ukraine. The United States shields Israel from accountability. China paralyzes efforts in the South China Sea. Meanwhile, the vast majority of humanity, represented by over 180 other member states, is effectively disenfranchised. This is not “collective security.” It is selective impunity. However, the rot goes deeper than geopolitics. The UN system itself has ballooned into a sprawling bureaucracy riddled with duplication and inertia. There are more than 30 specialized agencies and programs, many with overlapping mandates, jealously guarding turf and budgets. Accountability is weak, performance is uneven, and reform efforts have historically produced cosmetic rearrangements rather than structural change. When the world’s taxpayers demand value for money, what they see instead is mission creep, bureaucratic bloat, and a culture that rewards process over results. At the same time, the UN faces a funding crisis of its own making. Reliance on a few large donors has left it vulnerable to political whims. With U.S. contributions declining and arrears mounting from others, the organization is slashing jobs and even proposing to shutter agencies like UNAIDS. This is not the sign of a confident institution; it is the desperation of one that has lost both purpose and patronage. Defenders of the status quo insist that, for all its flaws, the UN remains indispensable. They point to peacekeeping missions that have prevented conflicts from spiraling, to humanitarian agencies that deliver food and medicine to millions, to frameworks like the Paris Agreement that would be unthinkable without UN convening power. These achievements are real. However, they are not enough to justify complacency. An institution cannot live forever on past glory. It must demonstrate present relevance. So what does renewal look like? First, it means confronting the veto. Without reforming or abolishing this outdated privilege, the Security Council will remain a monument to dysfunction. Even modest reforms—such as expanding permanent seats to include emerging powers, or requiring multiple vetoes to block action—would be steps toward legitimacy. Second, it requires a ruthless audit of mandates. The UN cannot be all things to all people. Agencies that have outlived their purpose should be consolidated or closed. Resources must be redirected to core functions: preventing war, protecting human rights, and coordinating truly global challenges like climate and health. Third, funding must be put on a stable and equitable footing. Member states must pay their dues, but beyond that, innovative financing—such as levies on global carbon markets, financial transactions, or tech giants that benefit from global public goods—could create sustainable revenue streams independent of national politics. Finally, renewal demands a change of culture. The UN must abandon the insularity and ritual that have too often defined its diplomacy. It must engage citizens directly, not just governments. Civil society, cities, and even corporations are now major actors in global affairs; they must have meaningful seats at the table. Let’s look at Canada’s Place in UN Renewal Canada likes to brand itself as a “middle power” and a faithful custodian of the international order. From Lester Pearson’s Nobel Prize for inventing UN peacekeeping in the 1950s to decades of enthusiastic support for development aid, Ottawa has built its identity around the UN. However, the gap between rhetoric and reality is growing. In recent years, Canada has failed to win a seat on the Security Council, a reminder that nostalgia does not equal influence. Our peacekeeping contributions are now a fraction of what they once were. Funding for UN programs, though still significant, has not kept pace with our aspirations. And on issues like Security Council reform, Canada has been cautious to the point of irrelevance. If Canada truly believes in the UN, it cannot sit on the sidelines of renewal. It should champion concrete reform proposals—limiting the veto, expanding representation for the Global South, and stabilizing funding mechanisms. It should put real political capital on the line, not just fine words in speeches. Canada’s credibility as a multilateral leader will be judged not by nostalgia for Pearsonian peacekeeping, but by whether it has the courage in 2025 to help pull the UN into the 21st century. If we fail, we risk being remembered as a country that cheered the UN’s legacy while watching passively as it slid into irrelevance. Hope the Canadian government is listening. Reform or Relic None of this will be easy. Entrenched powers will resist change, clinging to privileges they see as eternal. Bureaucrats will bury reform in committees. Cynics will scoff that the UN has survived eight decades without fundamental renewal, and therefore will muddle through another. However this complacency is dangerous. History shows that institutions that fail to adapt eventually collapse. The League of Nations seemed permanent in 1920. By 1940 it was a hollow shell. The United Nations stands at a crossroads. Either it chooses the path of bold renewal—reinventing itself to meet the challenges of this century—or it will drift into obsolescence, a grand stage for empty speeches while real power shifts elsewhere. The stakes could not be higher. In a world riven by war, inequality, and planetary emergency, a credible, effective UN is not a luxury. It is a necessity. However, necessity is not destiny. Unless member states summon the courage to reform what they have built, the 80th anniversary of the UN may be remembered less as a milestone than as the beginning of its decline. Let us hope for a promising future without wars.