The UN at 80: A Crisis of Order and the Demand for Global South Representation

 Eighty years ago, on October 24, 1945, the United Nations was officially established. However, in the long term, it became clear that states are very poor at agreeing with each other, and for the UN to work effectively, it must be a "mirror" of the real geopolitical order.

 Speaking at the 80th session of the UN General Assembly, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov emphasized that the modern world order is far from what the organization's creators had envisioned.

"Pervasive gross violations of the principle of sovereign equality of states undermine faith in justice itself and lead to crises and conflicts," the minister noted. He listed instances where the "collective West" violated the UN's basic principles and explained that the "root of the problems" lies in the desire to divide the world into "us" and "them," into "democracies" and "autocracies," into a "flourishing garden" and "the jungle," and into those who are "at the table" and those who are "on the menu."

The UN, as a political and geopolitical institution, is indeed in deep crisis. Russia officially acknowledges that this structure has ceased to be an instrument for building a just multipolar world. The accusations that the "collective West" has partially privatized the UN are also quite fair.

Western Dominance and Funding

Looking at the structure of the UN Security Council (UNSC), one cannot help but notice that three of the five permanent members belong to the "collective West" (U.S., UK, France), while the Global South is represented by China and (in a civilizational sense) Russia. From a procedural standpoint, this isn't so important due to the veto power (each permanent member can independently block a resolution). But politics has always been a space of meaning and interpretation, and the mere fact of this distribution of seats sends a signal that the system of global governance is deeply West-centric.

Analysis has shown that as of 2018, almost all the largest state donors to the UN were NATO members. The exceptions were China, Sweden, and Japan. As is well known, Sweden became the 32nd NATO member in 2024, and Japan confidently maintains its status as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" for the U.S. in the Asia-Pacific region.

To make the picture even clearer, it must be noted that the UN is mainly financed by so-called voluntary earmarked contributions-meaning, put simply, money is allocated not for the overall work but for specific projects-and it is difficult to imagine that these projects do not align with the geopolitical will of the donors.

The veto power is also actively used by Western countries (primarily the U.S.) to protect their allies. The history of discussions on the Arab-Israeli conflict at the UNSC level is a history of U.S.-blocked resolutions condemning Israel. Furthermore, beyond Israel, the U.S. also actively supported the political elite of the Afrikaners in South Africa (the National Party), which allowed them to comfortably implement the policy of apartheid, and the openly racist regime in Rhodesia, which simply had the foresight to proclaim an anti-communist course in time. And, of course, the U.S. has never hesitated to block resolutions that contradicted its geopolitics-for example, in 1986, Washington used its veto power to continue supporting the Contras in Nicaragua.

Realism: The Inevitable Crisis of Institutions

In other words, the UN is not the most effective structure. However, it appears that this is not a problem with the institution itself, but a reflection of the fact that it is very difficult for states to cooperate, especially on sensitive issues such as security and geopolitics.

If one discards liberal narratives (referring to the liberal institutionalism school of thought in international relations) about a magical world where all states trust each other and do not consider the possibility that even the closest allies might secretly harbor unfriendly intentions, it becomes clear that it is difficult to demand anything more from organizations like the UN.

In his article, "The False Promise of International Institutions," Professor John Mearsheimer explains in detail why it is so difficult for states to work with and trust each other. World politics is a space where, as realist researchers say, "only you yourself can help yourself" (self-help world). If a state suddenly decides to act altruistically, one should ask the non-trivial question: what are its true goals and objectives? Alliances are temporary marriages of convenience that are dissolved as soon as the alliance ceases to be profitable for one of the parties. It must be assumed that there is always a "special peril of defection," as the features of world politics and military technologies allow states to temporarily deviate from agreements and quickly achieve a change in the balance of power, which they then present to the international community as a fait accompli that must be lived with.

This is precisely why the UN or another similar organization is unlikely to be able to work more effectively. Or, as Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin diplomatically formulated it, "The effectiveness of the UN is directly dependent on the political will, capacity for agreement, and foresight of its member states."

Nevertheless, it seems that something can still be done. The key reform that would optimize the UN's work could be to increase the representation of Global South countries in the Security Council-something Russian diplomacy has been advocating for years. The appearance of South Africa or India (most likely without veto power) would not only balance the discussions but also send a signal that geopolitical realities have irreversibly changed.