The World is Quiet Quitting the UN

At the forum, US President Donald Trump officially launched a new multilateral body – the Board of Peace. This institution was first mentioned a few months back, as a body tasked with overseeing the framework to end the war in Gaza. However, it has since morphed into a much more comprehensive idea, with a much more robust mission. The Board of Peace is now envisioned by the President to serve as a global forum intended to promote global stability and conflict resolution through mediation. If this sounds familiar – you’re not mistaken. The President is launching an institution with the same core mission of the one established in the wake of the Second World War – the United Nations.

Many have cried foul, and pointed out that the President’s proposal is in fact an attempt to undermine, and even outright replace, the New-York based multilateral mechanism established nearly a century ago. They’re not wrong – this is exactly what’s happening. The rhetoric heard from the President himself, including in his most recent speech at the United Nation’s General Assembly in September, gave plenty of warning. Sharp criticism of the UN has also been echoed by the President’s geopolitical allies, such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Argentinian President Javier Milei.

Yet, one shouldn’t overlook the fact that several dozen countries that have already committed to joining this new institution, are among those that haven’t been as vocally critical of the UN’s incompetence, such as Bulgaria and Indonesia. Even more so, several of this new body’s members have historically benefited from the UN’s (lack of) stance, even enjoying a “free pass” on their own frequent human rights abuses. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are prime examples of this.

The evidence for the UN’s incompetence is ever-mounting. So much has already been written about the farcical “Human Rights Council”, where Iran held a seat through the end of 2025, and still serves in an advisory position. Last week, in the wake of the Islamic Republic’s brutal massacre of its own citizens over the course of three weeks (according to some estimates, topping 40 thousand deaths), the council finally issued a statement. In response to these atrocities, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk called on the Iranian authorities to “reconsider” their actions. How pathetic.

Then there’s the United Nation’s Security Council, meant to serve as the “adult in the room”, tackling the most pressing threats to global stability and security. This month, the council is being led by Somalia – a failed state known for anything but stability or security. In 2015, the UNSC supported efforts to provide the Iranian regime with a lifeline – the 10-year JCPOA which propped it up and even enabled it to continue funding its regional proxies – including Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. The Iranian regime’s near collapse, just three months after the expiration of this deal, proves just how much it had benefited from it.

We need not embellish on other UN bodies, such as the General Assembly, which in 2025 issued 15 condemnations of Israel and 11 of all other countries of the world combined (it was a relatively good year for Israel). UNRWA, which has indoctrinated generations of Palestinians to dedicate their lives to the Israel’s destruction instead of improving their own, is also all but defunct. UNRWA’s actions on and since October 7^th have provided concrete arguments for those calling to label this UN agency a terrorist organization.

Much of the world is seeing just what a farce the United Nations has become. Countries that have long stayed silent about this, out of politeness or due to their own gains from this institution’s incompetence, are now coming around. While a lack of world order is something that can be advantageous at times to certain players on the global stage, eventually everyone suffers from it. These countries are now voting with their feet, choosing to walk other paths.

What should concern the United Nations at this point, is not the vocal criticism it receives from the likes of Israel, the United States (under Trump), or Milei’s Argentina. This harsh criticism, the call for change, represented a hope that redemption for the UN was indeed possible. Rather, it should fear those that have not been outspoken on the historical institution’s failings, and chose instead to simply “quiet quit”. With alternatives already being pursued, the UN faces a severe risk of even more budget cuts, hollowing out and eventually dissolution. Frankly, I await that day.