UN’s universalism obsolete in a multipolar world

Last September, in the shadow of escalating global crises—from the grinding stalemate in Ukraine to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza—the United Nations convened another General Assembly. Gathered in New York, world leaders delivered speeches —some fierce, some emotional —on peace, human rights and sustainable development.

This is the UN in 2025: a body struggling to fulfill its founding mission to “save humanity from hell”, in the words of its second Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjold, and “to bring people together”, as recently advocated by Pope Leo XIV. A forum reduced to universalism— paralyzed by vetoes and bureaucracy, while real action flourishes in regional multilateralism.

Regional and cross-regional groupings such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the BRICS are emerging as the new global laboratories. They have supplanted the UN as venues for multilateral collaboration. Through these institutions, great powers such as China and Russia are quietly building new financial and cybersecurity models.

They thus acquire significant say in shaping a new global order. During the SCO’s September Tianjin summit, Beijing touted its new multilateral creeping enterprise: the Global Governance Initiative. Meanwhile, the United States, still viewing the UN more as a liability than an asset, remains involved with the existing institution.

Born from the ashes of World War II, the UN was forged as humanity’s guardian: preventing wars, encouraging cooperation and fostering justice. Yet, eight decades on, it is facing structural cracks and a crisis of legitimacy.

Global South nations decry Western bias while great powers exploit vetoes for impunity. The Security Council, dominated by 1945’s victors, is gridlocked. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine only produces vetoed resolutions. Israel’s operations in Gaza have turned into more vetoes. Climate commitments at COP end up in perfectly non-binding promises.

The contrast with the dynamism of regional multilateralism cannot be more daunting. These blocs—smaller, aligned, decisive—tackle threats the UN can’t address. The question is not whether the UN has failed; it is whether, amid a landscape of geopolitical regressions and diminished expectations, it has become obsolete —a relic preaching “one world” ideals as more nimble blocs shape a new world order.

Since 2022, NATO has poured over $200 billion into Ukraine, training troops, supplying munitions and deterring Russian escalation. The 2024 Washington Summit expanded membership to Finland and Sweden and ramped up spending to 2% of GDP, fortifying Europe’s status. Meanwhile, the 12 remaining UN peacekeeping missions languish, underfunded and outgunned, and risk slow extinction and irrelevance.

Economics tells a similar tale. The European Union, with its single market of 450 million people, boasts the world’s largest trading bloc. The euro stabilizes 20 economies; the NextGenerationEU fund has disbursed 800 billion euros for green and digital transitions post-Covid. Intra-EU trade hits 60% of members’ total—far outpacing global averages.

ASEAN, spanning diverse Southeast Asia, has inked the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)—the world’s largest trade deal—slashing tariffs and boosting GDP by 2.5% annually.

The African Union’s continental free trade initiative unites 1.4 billion people and is projected to add $450 billion to incomes by 2035. These blocs operate without the veto deadlock and extensive debates that hamper the UN, offering more decisive responses to security and economic challenges.

Minilateral groups — these ad hoc “clubs of the willing” — further illustrate the preference for flexible, interest-aligned coalitions over the UN’s universal approach. The Quad (US, Japan, India, Australia) counters China in the Indo-Pacific with joint exercises and tech pacts. AUKUS delivers nuclear subs to Australia in another check on China. These pliable formats deliver where 193-member talks stall.

Critics cling to universalism’s moral appeal. But even small islands drowning in the wake of climate change need regions to amplify their voices. The EU funnels 100 billion euros annually to developing nations; CARICOM sways UN votes as a bloc.

Drawing from moral philosophies and rooted in universal ethical principles, the Sustainable Development Goals’ progress (SDGs) remains scant, and discussions about their vagueness, if not fairness, abound.

The UN’s one-size-fits-all model is increasingly seen as outdated amid rising multipolarity and competing blocs such as BRICS versus G7. Without significant reform, the UN risks becoming an echo chamber bypassed by more nimble regional powers.

And yet, the UN could pivot: defer security to NATO and the African Union, and economics to the WTO, with regional input, while focusing on norm-setting and peace through mediation or arbitration.

Implementing subsidiarity – allocating responsibilities to the most appropriate level – could serve as its central driving force, helping the organization concentrate on tasks no other entity can manage effectively.

The UN continues to offer two central advantages: its normative and standard-setting role addressing global issues that demand collective action, such as climate change, mass displacement and AI-driven inequality, and its presence in complex environments, especially as countries reduce their own aid capacities.

The UN’s revival only needs a broader, visionary approach beyond incremental changes. This suggests a longer planning horizon that only a new Secretary-General can imagine and spearhead, though not before January 2027.

Eric Alter is a former UN civil servant and dean of a diplomatic academy.