Muhammad Haseeb Sulehri

Since its emergence around 80 years ago, the UN has been central to the international system. As a platform for negotiations among all countries, the UN has also played an active role in conflict resolution and in helping some of the world's poorest countries. Today, the UN faces serious problems that may lead to the organisation's collapse because of a lack of funding and an inability to continue operating. Can the UN disintegrate, and what needs to be done to prevent it? Since 1945, the UN has been the core international institution responsible for settling conflicts among countries and addressing common problems. In addition to peacekeeping and humanitarian aid, the UN develops international law. For these reasons, the UN has been central to how the world now functions. However, it’s also an organisation facing huge problems. Amidst growing criticism, it’s seen an unprecedented political backlash that’s now straining its finances. With major donors slashing contributions and dozens of members failing to pay their dues, fears are growing that the UN could soon face a catastrophic crisis. Indeed, the Secretary-General is even warning of imminent financial collapse.

To understand the seriousness of the current situation, we have to look at the UN’s origins and evolution. The United Nations Organization was created at the end of the Second World War. As the successor to the failed League of Nations, it had just 51 founding member states and a relatively narrow focus on maintaining international peace and security. The Security Council, with its five veto-wielding permanent members, reflected the realities of post-war power politics, while the General Assembly embodied the principle of the members’ sovereign equality. Meanwhile, the UN established a Secretariat to oversee administration and a judicial organ. The International Court of Justice was created to rule on matters of international law and handle disputes between members. But despite these relatively humble beginnings, the UN expanded dramatically in both size and scope over the decades that followed. Decolonization brought waves of new members, transforming it from a club of mostly Western countries into a truly global body with 193 members today. Meanwhile, its activities also grew. Although conflict management remained at the core of its work, leading to the emergence of peacekeeping operations, it also began to focus on numerous other areas. Agencies and programs were established  to address issues ranging from health, education, and development through to  refugees, food security, and human rights. As a result of all this, the UN is now vast, employing tens of thousands of staff and relying on a network of field offices,  specialized agencies, and partner organizations. It is present on all continents and influences almost every major issue on the planet. Its peacekeepers work under the most dangerous circumstances on earth, while its humanitarian agencies provide food to millions of people, deal with natural disasters, and provide basic services where governments fail. Meanwhile, this institution has become a crucial forum of discussion for the issues confronting the world.

However, while the UN has become a crucial pillar of global governance, its gigantic size has also caused troubles. Aside from being a highly complex organization, it’s also costly to run. In 2025, the regular budget stood at $ 3.7 billion. On top of that, peacekeeping came in at around $5.4 billion. Then there’s the cost of running aid and assistance programs, including the specialized agencies. This is now estimated to be around 60 billion annually. To this end, the UN’s financial model broadly depends on two main sources of income. The first are the assessed contributions,  which member states are legally obliged to pay. This covers administrative costs and separate contributions to peacekeeping. Secondly, there are voluntary  contributions that fund much of its humanitarian and development work. And while this structure has always been precarious, it’s now under unprecedented strain. At the core of the current crisis is a significant drop in both voluntary and assessed contributions,  particularly from the United States.

Historically, the US has been the UN’s largest donor. But while it’s often withheld funds for political reasons or to push for reform, under the second Trump administration it slashed its contributions, arguing that the UN is not only inefficient and politically biased, but also stands against  its sovereignty and national interests. Additionally, it’s withdrawn from several UN agencies such as UNESCO, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, and the World Health Organisation, taking its funding with it. Altogether, this is having a huge impact. In addition to owing almost 4 billion US dollars in assessed contributions and peacekeeping costs, it has significantly cut its voluntary contributions, with suggestions that this will drop from around 17 billion dollars just a few years ago to just 2 billion dollars this year. And even though Washington has just agreed to pay a large part of the money it owes on assessed contributions, this still falls far short of what the UN now needs overall. However, the problem goes far beyond the United States. While its cuts have been particularly painful, other countries have also reduced their voluntary funding. For example, Britain, France, and Germany have all scaled back their contributions, increasingly focusing on  defence and security spending. So too have other Western states. All the while, dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are simply not paying what they owe on their assessed contributions,  or are paying months or even years late. And it’s all this that’s now created the huge financial problems the UN faces.

Overall, the scale of the problem is huge. As UN agencies have been forced to suspend programs, delay salaries, and draw on reserves just to stay afloat, essential services, including food aid, health services, and refugee support, have all been affected. Peacekeeping is also experiencing serious reductions in staff numbers. On its own internal front, the organization has made 15 per cent budget reductions for 2026, including hiring freezes, contract cancellations, and deferred programs. The difference between the present situation and past budget cuts at the UN is that there may not even be any financial safety net remaining for it. Indeed, officials now warn that parts of  the UN system are edging towards insolvency, with potential knock-on  effects on the UN as a whole. Faced with such a crisis, frantic efforts are underway to make up the shortfall.

But while there are appeals for countries to pay their dues on time and maintain voluntary contributions, some analysts are pointing to radical options to avoid catastrophe. One possibility is that another country could step in to replace lost US funding. However, it’s hard to see who could. Russia is certainly in no position to do so, and it seems unlikely that the European Union countries will. China could, but if Beijing took this on, it would want a greater say over priorities, staffing, and approach. This could shift the emphasis toward sovereignty and development over human rights and democracy. Another scenario is relocation, with key agencies moving away from the traditional headquarters in New York and Geneva to reduce costs. The trouble is that this could also have a disastrous effect. If the UN leaves the United States, some fear it may prompt the United States to leave the UN. If this happened, others could well follow, leading to complete irrelevance and collapse. Meanwhile, other pessimistic scenarios envisage a fragmentation of the UN system, with some agencies surviving independently while others wither away. Most seriously, the UN could disappear altogether. So, could the UN really be on the verge of collapse? On the one side, some argue that this just won’t happen. The United Nations is just too large and too crucial for failure. Even if they are critical of the UN, most nations still look to it when dealing with a crisis beyond their capability. As there’s no other body that could come close to replacing it, they argue that while the UN may have to change, perhaps radically, it will ultimately survive.

But not everyone shares this view. Some feel that these present-day economic troubles are just symptoms of something bigger. The UN is facing a crisis of legitimacy on multiple fronts. As great power rivalry grows and countries seem less constrained by international law, UN authority has been undermined. Likewise, the shift by some countries such as the US towards unilateralism has made the UN seem less relevant than ever. Finally, many countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America question an institutional order they didn’t design, and one that favors countries that are no longer great powers. In this context, the chronic underfunding isn’t an accident. It’s the result of a broader loss of confidence. And without drastic reform, many would argue that collapse isn’t just possible. It could soon become inevitable. But whatever the outcome of the financial crisis, the UN is entering a truly decisive period. Financial difficulties, internal disputes, and the general instability of the international system are now posing threats to the organization.

It is unclear what will happen: whether it will survive, shrink, reform, or collapse. What is sure, however, is that whatever happens depends on the actions of member states. In their deliberations on what is required from the organization, it is essential that they know what a collapse means. It is easy to criticize the UN, but the UN falls short of its ideals. Instead, it will simply leave a vacuum precisely when shared challenges are growing and intensifying. Without it, conflict management will shift towards regional powers, each pursuing its own agenda. The humanitarian response will be much slower and far more political, while small countries will lose an important diplomatic avenue. At the same time, the threat of conflict between great powers will only keep increasing. While the United Nations certainly has its flaws, these are preferable to the alternative of no common framework at all. And it’s for all these reasons that what happens next will shape not just the future of the UN, but the very nature of international relations for decades to come.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official stance of The Himalayan Research Institute Pakistan (THRIP)

_________________________________ 

Muhammad Haseeb Sulehria is a researcher from Quaid-i-Azam University (QAU), Islamabad, currently pursuing a Bachelor's degree in Defense and Strategic Studies. His research interests include defense, strategic affairs, international relations, and national security.