To survive, the UN must adapt and reform, of course. But no country is an island or a fortress in the 21st century. And no country is indispensable. In an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world, multilateralism is indispensable. Even if the UN were dismantled temporarily, it would have to be reinvented anew.
I recall in the 1960s, Indonesia's mercurial leader, Sukarno, quit the UN and tried to form a Conference of the New Emerging Forces (CONEFO) as an alternative. CONEFO did not last very long, as Sukarno's successor Suharto quietly "resumed" Indonesia's participation in the UN.
Perhaps DJT's 'Board of Peace' will meet a similar fate. But the US disengagement, even for a short period, is likely to cause lasting damage to the already enfeebled UN.
Moving on: A United Nations without the US
Author: ED Mathew (Former UN spokesperson)
Publication: The New Indian Express
Date: January 21, 2026
Summary:
Donald Trump's executive order withdrawing the US from 66 international organizations, including 31 UN-linked entities, represents a systematic dismantling of the multilateral architecture that Washington helped establish after World War II. The withdrawals span international security, law, trade, energy, climate, development and human rights bodies, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Global Counterterrorism Forum, International Energy Forum, UN Peacebuilding Commission, UN Population Fund, and the India-France led International Solar Alliance. These exits follow earlier departures from UNESCO and the UN Human Rights Council, alongside the effective dismantling of USAID.
The US has slashed over $2 billion from the UN system, including $800 million in peacekeeping cuts, forcing the organization to reduce peace missions by 25 percent and prepare for nearly 20 percent staff cuts. UN Secretary-General António Guterres acknowledged the decisions while affirming the organization's determination to continue its mandates.
The author argues this creates a "world minus one" scenario where the US remains economically and militarily dominant but is absent from and hostile to global cooperation systems. However, historical precedent suggests multilateralism can survive American withdrawal, as it has previously advanced despite US opposition to racial equality at the League of Nations, decolonization, the Law of the Sea Convention, and the International Criminal Court.
China has emerged as the UN's second-largest contributor, paying nearly 20 percent of the regular budget and almost 25 percent of peacekeeping costs while providing more peacekeeping troops than any other permanent Security Council member. Middle powers and regional coalitions including BRICS, G20, ASEAN and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation are becoming platforms for collective response to US pressure. Brazil, South Africa, and India have demonstrated independence from Washington's demands while African-led peace operations funded by the European Union increasingly fill gaps left by shrinking UN missions.
The author proposes the UN must adapt by prioritizing core missions including humanitarian relief, peacekeeping, mediation and development coordination, mobilizing private capital and philanthropic foundations more aggressively, and persuading middle powers that underwriting multilateralism is essential for influence. The article suggests seriously considering relocating UN headquarters from New York as insulation against American political hostage-taking. The author concludes that even if a future US administration seeks to repair relationships, it will find a world that has diversified alliances and hedged against American unpredictability.
Quotes:
"When Donald Trump signed an executive order a few weeks ago withdrawing the US from 66 international organisations, including 31 entities linked to the United Nations, he did not merely thin out America's diplomatic footprint around the world. He took a wrecking ball to the architecture of global cooperation and consensus-building that Washington itself had designed and financed since the end of the Second World War."
"The mythology of American indispensability has long held that multilateralism cannot function without Washington. Trump is now stress-testing that assumption by vandalising the system from within and then stepping outside it."
"Despite Washington's tantrum, the Paris climate agreement still binds most of the world's economies. The International Criminal Court continues to operate despite US sanctions on its judges. Regional trade architectures are expanding. Trump is demolishing the facade of the house, but the foundations remain intact."
"The once-unthinkable proposal to move the UN headquarters out of New York deserves serious consideration—not as symbolism, but as insulation against American political hostage-taking through visas and access."
"Trump has broken the myth of American reliability. Even a future administration that seeks to repair the damage will find a world that has moved on, diversified its alliances and hedged against US caprice."
I broadly agree with the thrust of this. The UN is bruised and imperfect, but still indispensable in ways that are easy to underestimate until it is absent. History, including the CONEFO episode, shows that alternatives to universal multilateralism tend to be short-lived precisely because they lack scale and inclusiveness, which may also hold for The Peace Board.
ReplyDeleteThat said, it is worth being clear-eyed about what the UN is, and is not. International law can not be “enforced” by the UN in the way domestic law is enforced by a state. Its force has always rested on consent, reciprocity, norms, and the long-term self-interest of states. When major powers comply, law has weight; when they do not, the UN struggles. This was true during the Cold War, and it remains true today.
On human rights in particular, the UN can not provide rights; it articulates standards, creates scrutiny, and mobilises moral and political pressure. That may look weak, but over decades it has helped shape expectations, domestic laws, and behaviour more than is acknowledged. The alternative is not a world with “stronger enforcement,” but one with fewer constraints and less accountability.
A temporary US disengagement would do real damage, financially, politically, and symbolically. Yet it would also underline a deeper truth: the UN’s survival has never depended on any single member, however powerful. Multilateralism persists because no major power, including the US, can ultimately insulate itself from pandemics, climate shocks, or wars. Withdrawal may be dramatic; return is usually quiet and inevitable.
In that sense, the UN’s problem is not irrelevance, but adaptation. Reform is necessary, but so is a strong measure of institutional humility. The UN is not a world government. It is a forum that reflects the world as it is, fractured, unequal, contentious, yet still capable, at times, of cooperation. That alone remains valuable.
Martin Luther King, Jr., while imprisoned in the Birmingham (Alabama) jail, wrote a 12 page letter to fellow clergy on April 16, 1963.
ReplyDeleteThis excerpt seems relative also to the UN situation:
'We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a
single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.'