{"id":26157,"date":"2026-09-25T08:37:06","date_gmt":"2026-09-25T02:52:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=26157"},"modified":"2026-09-25T08:37:06","modified_gmt":"2026-09-25T02:52:06","slug":"the-united-nations-test-of-credibility-power-shifts-crises-and-the-future-of-multilateralism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=26157","title":{"rendered":"The United Nations\u2019 Test of Credibility: Power Shifts, Crises and the Future of Multilateralism<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Prem Sagar Poudel<\/strong><\/p>\n

The 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly is taking place at a time of profound change in the international order. Wars, economic inequality, the climate crisis, rapid technological development and growing competition among major powers are raising questions about the effectiveness of multilateral institutions. Established in 1945, the United Nations was founded to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations and promote cooperation in addressing common problems. Eight decades later, these objectives remain relevant. What has changed is the global distribution of power and the circumstances in which international consensus must be built.<\/p>\n

The General Debate, which began on September 22, has placed restoring trust, managing transformation and building a United Nations that delivers for all at the centre of its agenda. Secretary-General Ant\u00f3nio Guterres has identified peace and security, inequality, the climate crisis and artificial intelligence as major challenges. Although these problems may appear distinct, they raise a common question: who holds power, how is it exercised and who bears the consequences?<\/p>\n

An assessment of the United Nations requires an understanding of its institutional limits. It is not a world government. Its authority, budget, peace operations and capacity to implement decisions depend on the powers, resources and cooperation provided by member states. The failure to resolve an international crisis may therefore indicate institutional weakness, but responsibility cannot be placed entirely on the Secretariat or the Secretary-General. In many cases, the decisive obstacle is political disagreement among member states.<\/p>\n

The Security Council and the Question of Representation<\/h3>\n

The Security Council is at the centre of the debate over the United Nations\u2019 institutional structure. China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States are its five permanent members, each possessing veto power, while ten other members are elected for fixed terms. Based on the balance of power that emerged after the Second World War, this arrangement has prompted questions about whether it meets contemporary expectations of representation.<\/p>\n

No African country holds a permanent seat on the Security Council. Dissatisfaction also persists over the representation of Asia, Latin America and other developing regions. Proposals under discussion include expanding permanent and non-permanent membership and limiting the use of the veto. Yet there is disagreement over the form reform should take. Some countries favour expanding permanent membership, while others argue that doing so could create another layer of inequality.<\/p>\n

The veto can block certain decisions, but treating it as the sole cause of every crisis would be an incomplete analysis. Even after a resolution is adopted, bringing parties to an agreement, implementing peace accords and ensuring civilian protection require political will and resources. The effectiveness of the United Nations depends on the relationship between its decision-making structure and its capacity to implement decisions.<\/p>\n

War and the Test of International Law<\/h3>\n

The crises in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan illustrate different challenges facing the United Nations. In Ukraine, sovereignty, territorial integrity and the Charter\u2019s principles concerning the use of force are central questions. In Gaza, civilian protection, humanitarian assistance, a ceasefire, the situation of hostages and compliance with international humanitarian law remain key concerns. In Sudan, armed conflict has caused widespread displacement, food insecurity and a crisis in humanitarian access.<\/p>\n

These crises have different historical and political backgrounds, and their solutions cannot be identical. Nevertheless, the fundamental principles of civilian protection, humanitarian assistance and international law require consistent application. Confidence in international institutions weakens when the perception grows that comparable incidents are judged by different standards according to the countries or alliances involved.<\/p>\n

Deadlock in the Security Council is a central issue in criticism of the United Nations\u2019 inability to stop wars. At the same time, its contributions to coordinating humanitarian assistance, providing a common forum for negotiations, gathering facts and supporting international legal processes cannot be overlooked. Although its political power to end wars is limited, its role in reducing the humanitarian consequences of conflict and maintaining dialogue remains important.<\/p>\n

Peace Operations and Financial Pressure<\/h3>\n

United Nations peacekeeping operations have supported ceasefire monitoring, civilian protection and political processes. Modern conflicts, however, have made traditional operations more complex through the fragmentation of armed groups, cross-border activities, new technologies and local political instability. A review of the future of UN peace operations presented in August 2026 highlighted the need for a stronger emphasis on political solutions, closer partnerships with host countries, and clear mandates that can be adapted to changing circumstances.<\/p>\n

For countries such as Nepal that contribute personnel to peacekeeping operations, this debate is directly relevant. It raises the question of whether the experience of troop- and police-contributing countries is given sufficient consideration in mandate design, risk assessment and decisions concerning equipment and training. The success of an operation should be assessed not only by the number of personnel deployed, but also by civilian protection, the capacity of local institutions and progress towards a political settlement.<\/p>\n

The United Nations is also facing financial pressure. According to projections under the UN80 reform initiative, the overall resource base of the UN system could decline by approximately US$16 billion between 2024 and 2026, a contraction of nearly one quarter. Delayed contributions from member states and declining voluntary assistance could affect development and humanitarian programmes.<\/p>\n

Under these circumstances, there is a need to eliminate administrative duplication, improve coordination and strengthen financial transparency. Yet if food assistance, healthcare, refugee protection or civilian security are weakened in the name of reform, the objective of institutional efficiency itself is undermined. The test of financial reform is not simply how much expenditure is reduced, but how effectively essential services and outcomes are preserved.<\/p>\n

The Need for Common Rules in a Multipolar World<\/h3>\n

China\u2019s economic and technological role, India\u2019s growing international presence, Russia\u2019s influence in security affairs, the European Union\u2019s regulatory capacity and the activities of other regional powers are changing the global distribution of power. The activities of BRICS, the G20 and regional organisations demonstrate that countries are seeking diverse platforms for cooperation.<\/p>\n

Multipolarity, however, does not automatically guarantee a just international order. An increase in the number of power centres is different from a willingness among those centres to observe common rules. New groupings can expand options for development finance, trade and representation. But if coordination among institutions weakens, addressing shared challenges involving climate change, debt, technology and security may become even more difficult.<\/p>\n

The role of the United Nations is not to bring all centres of power into a single political worldview, but to preserve a foundation for dialogue and common rules even when disagreements persist. Member states have equal formal voting rights in the General Assembly, but their economic, military and diplomatic influence is unequal. Ensuring credible procedures and the consistent application of international law amid these disparities is a foundation of multilateralism.<\/p>\n

This question is equally relevant to development and technology. Debt burdens, climate-related damage and unequal access to technology constrain the capacities of developing countries. Smaller and developing states, alongside technologically advanced countries, need to participate in the formulation of international rules concerning artificial intelligence, data security and autonomous weapons. Representation in addressing shared problems must not be confined to formal participation.<\/p>\n

Nepal\u2019s Priorities and the Direction of Reform<\/h3>\n

For Nepal, the United Nations is more than a forum for delivering an annual address to the General Assembly. It has practical significance for sovereignty, territorial integrity, peacekeeping, climate justice, disaster management, development finance and graduation from least developed country status. For a country situated between major powers, multilateral dialogue offers opportunities to broaden its diplomatic options.<\/p>\n

Nepal can place greater emphasis on the policy outcomes of the issues raised at the General Assembly than on its presence there alone. Himalayan climate risks, post-disaster reconstruction, the participation of troop-contributing countries in peacekeeping decisions and development finance can be advanced as interconnected national interests rather than separate issues. Sustained preparation, evidence-based engagement and institutional coordination are important for this purpose.<\/p>\n

United Nations reform must be examined from three perspectives: the political structure, including the Security Council; the administrative efficiency of the Secretariat and UN agencies; and the implementation of commitments made by member states. Reform in one area does not automatically resolve problems in another. Broader representation still requires political agreement. Even increased funding may not produce the expected results in peace operations without clear mandates and local cooperation.<\/p>\n

The credibility of the United Nations is determined not only by its declarations, but also by its conduct during crises. Its structural limits are evident in matters of peace and security, while its role in humanitarian assistance, development cooperation, international law and diplomatic dialogue continues. Any assessment of the institution must consider its authority, resources, the cooperation of member states and the results achieved.<\/p>\n

The central question raised by the 81st General Assembly is not whether the United Nations is necessary, but how it can become more effective in a changing world. No single major power or Secretariat can provide the answer alone. The prospects for reform depend on rebalancing representation, strengthening institutional accountability, securing the commitment of member states and applying international law consistently. Competition among powers may persist, but the need for common rules and dialogue to manage it has not disappeared.<\/p>\n

About the Author: Prem Sagar Poudel is a senior journalist and international relations analyst from Nepal. He has conducted in-depth studies on Nepal-China relations, the geopolitics of the Himalayan region, and Asian security issues.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t