The League of Nations, formed after the First World War, failed because it could not enforce its decisions, lacked the participation of major world powers, such as the US, was undermined by economic depression and rising nationalism, and ultimately proved ineffective in preventing aggression that led to the outbreak of the Second World War. Its formal end came in 1946 when it voluntarily dissolved, handing its responsibilities to the newly formed United Nations. How has the UN passed then?
Since the UN was founded in 1945, numerous armed conflicts, including the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Yugoslav Wars, the Iraq War, the Syrian Civil War and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, have occurred globally, though no world wars on the scale of the first two have taken place. The UN was established to prevent such large-scale conflicts and maintain international peace and security, but new wars have started on average every two months since its creation.
Yet, the irony is hard to miss. If the UN has failed in its mission, the United States has played no small part in the failure. No country has more consistently bent, ignored or openly defied the organisation’s rules than Washington.
Attacks on Climate Policy, Migration
Trump’s appearance at the General Assembly was chaotic from the start. After complaining about a malfunctioning escalator and a failed teleprompter, he embarked on a stream-of-consciousness attack on fellow world leaders, with his ex tempore performance taking about four times the allotted time for any head of state on the forum. He called climate change ‘the world’s greatest scam’, derided international migration and accused London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan of being ‘terrible’, even invoking Sharia law in reference to Britain. Khan, in turn, labelled Trump racist, sexist, misogynistic and Islamophobic.
He mocked European renewable energy policies, attacked the UK’s immigration system and spoke of ending ‘unendable wars’ while hinting that he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize. Observers were reminded of previous moments when world leaders openly laughed at him during UN speeches—a humiliation he seemed determined to avenge.
The problem wasn’t so much with the identification of issues as it was with the absence of clinching arguments. Climate change, or global warming, for example, is an undeniable truth. It’s the percentage of the crisis attributable to human activities that is debatable.
That migration has changed the face of western Europe unrecognisably is undeniable, too. Trump could not seal his point, however, by stating that eastern Europe, mainly Poland, is free of the scourge precisely because its immigration policy is not suicidal.
Anyway, buried beneath the spite, theatrics and poor polemics was the US president’s central message: the UN is broken, unfit for purpose and unable to enforce its own charter. That critique, stripped of Trump’s delivery, carries weight. Yet if America wants to call the UN a failure, it must confront its own role in bringing the body to the brink of irrelevance.
Defying Consensus
The Security Council’s veto power is perhaps the greatest obstacle to UN action. Since 1972, the US has cast more than 80 vetoes. An Oxfam report last year noted that nearly all Security Council vetoes over the past decade were linked to Syria, Palestine and Ukraine. That has not only paralysed the Council in these cases but also eroded the body’s legitimacy. Smaller states view the UN less as a guardian of international law and more as a battleground for great-power politics.
While leftists would highlight how most of these vetoes constituted an exercise to shield Israel, the US also blocked resolutions that did not explicitly condemn Hamas for its actions, such as the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel. The fact that the US characterises specific resolutions as one-sided and biased against Israel, arguing they fail to acknowledge Israel's right to self-defence, is downplayed in the mainstream discourse. Be that as it may, one thing both the left and the right would agree with is the fact that, with these vetoes, the US made it clear to the world that it couldn’t care less about global consensus, even when the consensus is overwhelming.
UN Be Damned When US Must Wage War
When America wants the UN’s blessing, however, it pushes hard to secure it. Before the First Gulf War in 1991, Washington lobbied for Security Council approval to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. France eventually swung behind the coalition; Russia was too weakened after the Soviet collapse to mount serious resistance, and the war proceeded with a UN mandate. However, that proved the exception, not the rule.
In 2003, the US and its allies invaded Iraq without Security Council authorisation, despite vocal opposition from France, Russia and China. The justification — weapons of mass destruction — collapsed under scrutiny, and then, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan later declared the invasion illegal under the UN Charter. The war destabilised West Asia, fuelled sectarian violence and undermined faith in international institutions.
Perhaps the greatest irony surrounding Iraq surfaced when some retired CIA operatives revealed that they once hired Saddam Hussein to assassinate the Shah of Iran before that country witnessed a sponsored Islamic Revolution in 1977. That very Hussein would, in a matter of less than two more decades, turn into one of the topmost enemies identified by the Pentagon for elimination!
The same disregard marked earlier and later conflicts—Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, etc—where Washington acted unilaterally and left the UN sidelined.
The UN Charter enshrines the principles of sovereignty and non-interference. Yet America’s Cold War record tells another story.
- In Iran in 1953, the CIA toppled Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalised oil. The coup restored the Shah, thereby cementing decades of repression and ultimately paving the way for revolution.
- In Guatemala in 1954, another CIA operation removed President Jacobo Árbenz, whose land reforms threatened US corporate interests. The result was decades of civil war.
- Across Latin America and Africa, similar patterns emerged: Chile’s Salvador Allende was ousted in 1973 with US support; Angola and the Congo saw Washington backing one faction against another.
Political scientist Dov Levin has catalogued at least 81 cases of US election interference between 1946 and 2000. Propaganda, covert funding and proxy support were tools deployed to tilt outcomes. None of this had UN sanction. On the contrary, it directly contravened the body’s most basic principles.
When America needs the UN, it uses it. When it does not, it sidelines it. Today, Nato is fighting alongside Ukraine, not under UN auspices but in defiance of Russia, another veto-wielding power. The UN is again irrelevant to the world’s most pressing war. The message is clear: the rules apply only when Washington agrees.
This record has generated deep resentment across the developing world. Leaders in Africa, Asia and Latin America point to American interventions as evidence that the international order is skewed.
The US manipulates civil society abroad, funds dissidents, amplifies internal divisions via media and social networks and pushes for regime change under the guise of democracy promotion. Whether through overt wars or covert destabilisation, the outcome is often the same—weakened states, prolonged conflicts and millions of displaced civilians—all of which the UN then struggles to manage.
UN: Doomed?
The UN has achieved significant milestones, including peacekeeping operations in dozens of conflicts, eradication campaigns against diseases, and providing humanitarian aid in the aftermath of disasters. Yet its central purpose—preventing war—looks hollow when its most powerful members flout the rules.
Reform proposals are perennial—limiting veto power, expanding the Security Council to include emerging powers or creating emergency mechanisms for humanitarian crises. But none can succeed without buy-in from the US, the very country most often accused of undermining the system.
Donald Trump’s speech may be remembered for his histrionics, attacks on rivals and dismissal of climate change. But his central claim—that the UN is a failed organisation— cannot be dismissed entirely. The organisation has failed to stop wars.
The irony is that the United States is the least qualified nation to voice that complaint. From Vietnam to Iraq, from covert coups to election meddling, from endless vetoes to unilateral wars, America has been the single greatest violator of the UN’s spirit and charter.
If the United Nations is broken, Washington bears a considerable part of the responsibility. To blame the institution without acknowledging that record is not just hypocrisy—it is an abdication of accountability.
The author is a senior journalist and writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.
