The Imperative Replacement of the UN

The League of Nations (LN), created after the First World War with the aim of maintaining world peace, was evidently a failure, as illustrated by the Second World War. Consequently, American President Franklin D. Roosevelt decided to create a new body, the “UN,” which he hoped would be more effective than the LN, with the cooperation of the allies who defeated Nazi Germany.

The Charter of the United Nations was signed by 50 states in 1945, and on December 10, 1948, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a guide of conduct for each member state. However, it now appears that the vast majority of them are very far from the spirit of the Declaration of Human Rights, to the point that their presence as members has degraded the institution and its authority.

Preamble to the Adoption of Human Rights (UN, December 10, 1948):

1. Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
2. Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.
3. Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.
4. Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations.
5. Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.
6. Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
7. Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge.

The General Assembly proclaimed this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance.

A Changing Institution

From 1945 to 2022, the number of UN member states rose from 51 to 193, notably due to legitimate decolonization, leading to a profound change in the nature of the institution. Two tyrannical states—Russia and China—became permanent members of the Security Council and consequently hold a right of veto over decisions, further discrediting the UN.

If we consider countries with more than one million inhabitants, 36 are democracies; thus, “approximately”* 157 countries are tyrannies, dictatorships, or countries not guided by the UN rules of Human Rights (*this figure also includes few micro-states of less than one million inhabitants). More than 80% of UN members are non-democratic countries that should not be members, which is why its decisions and missions have become meaningless. Furthermore, the rise of religious fanaticism among many members exacerbates this dramatic phenomenon.

From 1946 to 2022, 210 proposals were blocked: 117 by the USSR/Russia and 82 by the United States.

Main UN contributors (2018) :

• USA : 22%
• Japan : 9.68%
• China : 7.921%
• Germany : 6.389%
• France : 4.859%
• UK : 4.463%
• Russia : 3.088%

Ten countries finance 67.48% of the UN, while 183 countries contribute only 32.52%. Western countries represent 52.65% of the budget. Thus, U.S. decisions can be blocked by Russia, a contributor seven times smaller.

Notable Failure of the UN

1. Palestine (1947): The UK’s inability to fulfill its mandate, eventually handing it to the UN after reducing Palestine to serve its hegemonic interests and the installation of the Hashemite dynasty.
2. Jewish Immigration: The UK prevented Jews from reaching Palestine under the Nazi regime and abstained from the 1947 General Assembly vote.
3. Rwanda: Inability to stop the Tutsi genocide (800,000 dead).
4. Yugoslavia: Inability to stop the conflict from 1991 to 1995.
5. Srebrenica: Inaction of 400 Dutch peacekeepers who allowed the massacre of 8,000 Bosniaks.
6. Haiti (2010): Inability to provide aid after the earthquake. Only the U.S. Army (10,000 soldiers) came to the population’s rescue (Operation Unified Response).
7. Ukraine (2022–present): Inability to stop Russian massacres of civilians.
8. Middle East: Inability to end atrocities in Syria and Iran, or stop Iran’s destabilization of the region.

The Rise of the SCO

Since June 15, 2001, totalitarian states opposing the UN have organized within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Headquartered in Beijing, its official languages are Chinese and Russian. Members include China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, India, Pakistan, Iran (2023), and Belarus (2024).

These countries represent 42% of the world population and 22% of global GDP. Their capacity for nuisance far exceeds their economic weight. In August 2025, China advocated for close cooperation with North Korea, a nuclear-armed state.

Conclusion and Alternatives

The essential objective of respecting Human Rights is to establish legitimate democracies through voters who prevent the rise of tyrants via populism—a common occurrence in countries lacking adequate education systems.

The complementarity of functions between the OECD and NATO could replace the UN for humanist countries. This would provide a new basis for maintaining dialogue with the tyrannies of the SCO. The American proposal for a “Peace Council” is far from reality, as it accepts too many questionable members and risks corruption and grants the right of veto to a «president for his remaining life.” However, this proposal highlights the fact that the UN has reached its level of incompetence.