Reclaiming the United Nations from Western Decline

In 2025, on the eve of the United Nations’ 80th anniversary, a growing chorus of Western voices is declaring the organisation obsolete. The critique, echoed uncritically in South African liberal media, laments the “ineffectiveness” and “paralysis” of the UN, suggesting that its time has passed in a rapidly shifting world order.

What is striking, however, is that this apparent concern for global governance is being deployed at the moment when the West is losing its grip on that governance. The narrative, rather than being rooted in a desire for democratisation, is shaped by anxiety over the collapse of Western exceptionalism.

The Russian Federation has responded by reaffirming its support for the UN, but with a clear call for reform. This reform is not cosmetic. It involves expanding the power of the Global Majority while resisting the return to a world dictated by NATO coalitions and closed-door Western interests. This position, presented in the liberal press as opportunistic, is in fact grounded in both history and realpolitik.

It recognises the UN’s contradictory nature. It was born from anti-fascist resistance and post-war consensus, but later hijacked by unipolar ambitions during the Cold War and the consolidation of neoliberalism.

The UN then presents a dual legacy - both emancipatory and compromised.

The United Nations was founded as a post-war mechanism to prevent another global catastrophe. It embodied the hope for international law, collective responsibility, and the protection of sovereignty. The "decolonisation" of Africa and Asia in the mid-20th century was legitimised in part by the UN Charter. It offered, however imperfectly, a platform for the dispossessed to speak.

Yet from its inception, the UN was structurally skewed. The Security Council’s composition, with five permanent members holding veto power, enshrined the hierarchy of "victors" from World War II - an imbalance that meant that while former colonies could speak in the General Assembly, they could never dictate terms in the Security Council. This imperial architecture was later exploited during the Cold War, most aggressively by the United States in the post-Soviet era.

What the Russian critique acknowledges, and what many African analysts echo, is that the UN became a tool of unipolar domination in the 1990s and early 2000s. Humanitarian interventions became a euphemism for regime change. UN bodies were captured to serve neoliberal agendas. Development was reduced to IMF diktats, and peacekeeping mandates protected Western economic interests over local sovereignty.

Western Hypocrisy: From Champion to Saboteur

The West’s current disillusionment with the UN stems from the erosion of its ability to control the narrative. When the UN fails to rubber-stamp NATO interventions or US foreign policy, it is deemed ineffective. When Russia or China exercise their veto rights, it is labelled as paralysis. Yet the same veto was tolerated, even ignored, when it was used by the United States to shield Israel from accountability or to justify illegal wars.

This hypocrisy has reached fever pitch in the context of Ukraine and Gaza. The UN’s attempts at consensus have been sabotaged by US-led bloc politics. When the General Assembly condemns Israeli aggression, the US invokes its veto. When Russia challenges NATO expansion, it is accused of imperialism. This takes place while NATO continues its own undeclared wars through economic sanctions, proxy forces, and disinformation.

In this climate, the Western call for reform rings false. While pretending to seek democratisation, it seeks the removal of obstacles to Western domination instead. The push to abolish or dilute the veto is less about accountability and more about ensuring that no counter-hegemonic bloc can halt the Western agenda.

Russian Advocacy: Reform from Below

The Russian position does not reject reform. On the contrary, it calls for a more representative UN. This includes reforming the Security Council to reflect the multipolar realities of the 21st century. Russia has consistently backed the inclusion of African, Asian, and Latin American nations as permanent members of the Security Council. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has emphasised that African nations must not only have a seat at the table. They must also have permanent status that reflects their role in global politics and history.

Unlike the Western reformers, Russia does not call for the dismantling of the veto. It calls for its preservation as a stabilising mechanism. This is not regressive. It is a brake on militarism and economic coercion. Without the veto, the world would already have seen direct NATO engagement in Syria, Iran, Venezuela, and beyond.

Additionally, Russia’s call to reform the UN is consistent with its broader doctrine of multipolarity. It rejects the notion of a single rules-based order imposed from Washington or Brussels. It champions a world of sovereign civilisations with diverse pathways to development, governance, and culture. This resonates with the Global South, which has suffered under the homogenising violence of liberalism presented as democracy.

South African Liberal Media and the Betrayal of Sovereignty

In this context, the repetition of Western anti-UN narratives in South African media is not only disappointing. It is dangerous. To declare the UN obsolete without interrogating whose interests that serves is to function as a mouthpiece for empire. It is to forget the role the UN played in challenging apartheid, in opposing colonialism, and in advocating for non-aligned voices.

South African liberal media, shaped by donor money and Western ideological assumptions, has long been complicit in constructing narratives that align with global capital and undermine African agency. Its attack on the UN is another example of its alignment with elite global interests masquerading as progressive critique.

It ignores the broader movement in the Global South for a reformed but preserved multilateral order. It ignores the desire for sovereignty to be restored without returning to the logic of Western-led governance.

The Real Battle: Collapse or Coexistence

The question is not whether the UN is flawed. It is flawed. The question is whether we abandon multilateralism and return to a world of unilateral coercion. That world is shaped by coalitions of the willing, where bombing precedes dialogue and sanctions replace diplomacy.

Russia’s position, whether one agrees with its geopolitical strategy or not, represents a clear alternative. It calls for the preservation of multilateralism, the reform of international structures, and the restoration of a world order grounded in sovereignty and pluralism.

The Global South, and Africa in particular, must not be tricked into dismantling the very platform that once helped to free it. The call to render the UN irrelevant is not liberation. It is surrender.

Let us not be fooled into thinking that Western editorial fatigue is a sign of moral clarity. It is the sound of hegemony cracking. The response must not be to join the wrecking crew. The response must be to rebuild the UN into an institution that speaks for the Global Majority. That is the only reform worth fighting for.

* Gillian Schutte is a writer, filmmaker and social critic. She challenges liberal orthodoxy, donor-driven journalism, and Western hypocrisy through a lens rooted in African sovereignty and counter-hegemonic critique.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.