As the United Nations (UN) commemorates its 80th anniversary in 2025, the world’s attention turns once more to the question of its effectiveness, relevance, and influence in global affairs. Founded in 1945 in the shadow of a devastating World War, the organization promised a new era of international cooperation, peace, and shared prosperity. Eight decades later, the UN faces profound scrutiny—not just as a forum for collective security and humanitarian aid, but as a truly functional instrument for peacekeeping, conflict resolution, and global governance.
The title “A Toothless Bulldog” encapsulates growing skepticism in both public discourse and scholarly literature concerning the UN’s ability to serve its founding ideals. Through a comprehensive analysis, this writer critically examines the UN’s historical context, organizational structure, achievements, limitations, and ongoing relevance, paying distinct attention to both its moments of triumph and notorious failings. Regional perspectives, institutional criticisms, reform debates, and an outlook for the next decade are all considered to offer a nuanced evaluation at this historic juncture.
Historical context of the United Nations
Established on October 24, 1945, the United Nations arose from the ashes of World War II, with 51 founding member states determined to prevent the recurrence of large-scale global conflict. The UN’s Charter, signed in San Francisco, was deliberately shaped by the bitter lessons of the League of Nations’ impotence and collective failure. Its ambitious goals included maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations, promoting human rights, and fostering economic and social progress.
Over the decades, the organization expanded both in membership—now numbering 193 states—and in the scope of its agenda.
During the Cold War, the UN was often paralyzed by superpower rivalry but found purpose in decolonization, humanitarian action, and peacekeeping in peripheral conflicts. The post-1990 period witnessed a surge in peace operations, humanitarian mandates, and multilateral activism—but it was likewise marked by deepening institutional gridlock, especially as the Security Council remained dominated by the interests and vetoes of its five permanent members (the P5: the US, UK, France, Russia, and China). The UN’s ability to adapt to global shifts—rising multipolarity, new forms of conflict, climate change, and cross-border health crises—has drawn sharp debate. As the world in 2025 faces severe geopolitical polarization, escalating regional wars, and existential threats like climate change, the UN’s founding vision appears both urgently necessary and persistently elusive.
United Nations organizational structure and decision-making
The UN’s organizational architecture reflects both its aspiration for universality and the pragmatic realities of global power. It is composed of six principal organs: the General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), Trusteeship Council (now inactive), International Court of Justice, and Secretariat
The General Assembly: Serving as a deliberative body, the Assembly grants each member state a single vote, symbolizing formal equality. It adopts non-binding resolutions on international issues, oversees the budget, and serves as a platform for global debate.
The Security Council: The Council is tasked with maintaining international peace and security, wielding the authority to pass binding resolutions, authorize peacekeeping missions, impose sanctions, and, in theory, authorize the use of force. However, the veto power of the P5 frequently results in stalemate on contentious matters, often stifling action in the face of global crises.
The Secretariat and Specialized Agencies: The Secretary-General—currently António Guterres—oversees an international civil service executing day-to-day work. Numerous specialized agencies (e.g., WHO, UNESCO, UNICEF, WFP) and programmes (e.g., UNDP, UNEP, UNHCR) address specialized domains, from health and education to refugees and environmental management.
The UN’s consensus-based, multilayered decision-making process is both its greatest strength and a persistent source of weakness. While inclusive and consultative, this structure can hamper rapid decision-making, foster bureaucratic inertia, and provide significant scope for power politics. Transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness of Security Council working methods, in particular, remain a focal point of recurring criticism.
Conflict resolution mechanisms diplomatic mediation and preventive diplomacy
At its core, the UN was envisioned as a forum for preemptively addressing disputes before they escalated into violence. Its conflict resolution mechanisms include good offices, mediation, arbitration, fact-finding missions, and, where necessary, Security Council mandates. In recent years, the Secretariat has strengthened early warning and preventive diplomacy initiatives, leveraging envoys, regional offices, and partnerships with regional organizations (such as the African Union and European Union). However, the track record is mixed. While the UN boasts some notable successes—such as mediating peace in Mozambique (1992), Cambodia (1993), and the Iran-Iraq war (1988)—its limitations have become more pronounced amid modern, multi-actor conflicts, civil wars, and terrorism. Persistent division among the P5, lack of enforcement instruments, and the sovereignty concerns of member states collectively restrain the organization’s effectiveness.
Security Council mandates and enforcement
The Security Council’s enforcement capacity is often cited as both a pillar and a failure of the UN system. Despite authorizing over 70 peacekeeping and special political missions, the Council has been hamstrung by veto politics—most strikingly in ongoing conflicts such as Syria, Palestine, and Ukraine. The inability to reach consensus or enforce mandates against the interests of a veto-wielding member blunts the UN’s deterrence and punitive capacity, rendering it, in many critics’ eyes, a “toothless bulldog” especially where great power interests are at stake.
Peacekeeping missions – success stories
The UN’s blue-helmeted peacekeepers have come to symbolize its commitment to international peace and security. Over its history, nearly two million peacekeepers from 125 countries have contributed to global missions.
Notable successes include:
Namibia (UNTAG, 1989-1990): Supervised transition to independence and free elections, resulting in a stable, peaceful nation.
Mozambique (ONUMOZ, 1992-1994): Oversaw ceasefire and facilitated disarmament and democratic transition after a devastating civil war.
Liberia and Sierra Leone (UNMIL, UNAMSIL): Helped end civil wars, demobilized combatants, and supported post-conflict reconstruction.
Cambodia (UNTAC, 1991-1993): Managed comprehensive peace operation, including elections and institution-building.
East Timor (UNTAET, 1999-2002): Administered transition to independence, including security, law, and governance systems.
Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI): Supported successful democratic transition after protracted violence.
These cases highlight the UN’s comparative advantage in post-conflict environments where parties are committed to peace, and the mandate is clear and robust. The organization’s legitimacy, logistical capacity, and experience in multidimensional peace operations—combining military, police, humanitarian, and election support—demonstrate the unique value of UN peacekeeping when conditions permit.
Peacekeeping missions – Failures and limitations
Despite the above successes, peacekeeping missions have often been marked by severe shortcomings, controversial failures, and mounting criticism.
High profile failures
Rwanda (UNAMIR, 1994): The mission lacked authority and resources to stop genocide, despite forewarnings. Over 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered while the international community failed to intervene.
Srebrenica (1995): UN peacekeepers in Bosnia, operating under a limited mandate, failed to prevent the massacre of over 8,000 Bosniak men and boys in a designated “safe area.”
Somalia (UNOSOM, early 1990s): The mission became mired in violence, leading to a chaotic withdrawal and broader skepticism about UN intervention in civil wars.
South Sudan (2013–present): Ongoing violence, lack of political settlement, and weak mandate have limited the mission’s ability to protect civilians and facilitate peace.
A consistent pattern emerges from these failures: mandates that lack clarity or robustness, insufficient resources, hamstrung rules of engagement, and, above all, the lack of political will in the Security Council to authorize forceful or preventive action. Allegations of abuse, misconduct, and corruption have further undercut public legitimacy.
Structural constraints
Another fundamental limitation of peacekeeping is the UN’s reliance on voluntary troop contributions and donor funding, exposing operations to fluctuations in both numbers and quality. Host state consent, while critical for legitimacy, can render missions ineffective where the government is itself complicit in violence. The limited authority to use force—‘robust’ mandates notwithstanding—can paradoxically expose both peacekeepers and civilians to heightened risk. These operational, legal, and political ambiguities fuel the “toothless bulldog” critique, especially in the context of new wars involving non-state armed groups, terrorism, and hybrid actors.
Humanitarian aid initiatives
Through agencies such as UNICEF, the World Food Programme (WFP), and the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN remains the world’s largest provider of humanitarian aid, coordinating responses to wars, famines, pandemics, and natural disasters.
Achievements in Humanitarian Relief
Emergency Food Aid: WFP provided food assistance to nearly 160 million people in 2023-24, with new strategies targeting conflict zones and climate-affected areas
Vaccination and Health: UNICEF and WHO jointly immunized millions against preventable diseases, including polio and cholera, curtailing outbreaks in refugee camps and disaster-affected regions.
Refugee Protection: UNHCR managed over 35 million refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs), coordinating shelter, education, and livelihood support.
School Meals and Gender Initiatives: Expanded school meal programs reached 80 million more children between 2022 and 2025, with a focus on gender equality and girls’ education. These operations are often praised for their scale, inclusivity, and the life-saving impact made possible by multilateral coordination. The UN’s ability to marshal international resources rapidly and to broker humanitarian access in conflict zones remains largely unrivaled.
Persistent challenges
Nonetheless, the humanitarian effort is constantly threatened by funding gaps, politicization of aid, logistical bottlenecks, and mounting needs. The 2025 Global Humanitarian Assistance report notes a historic gap between rising needs and available resources as protracted crises—from Yemen to the Sahel—overwhelm donor fatigue and global attention spans. Humanitarian aid is frequently hindered by restrictions imposed by belligerents or governments, as well as Security Council deadlock obstructing the establishment of safe corridors or cross-border assistance.
Climate change actions and initiatives
Facing what Secretary-General Guterres has termed “the defining issue of our time”, the UN has been at the forefront of global efforts to address climate change. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Paris Agreement (2015), and successive annual Conferences of the Parties (COPs) are testaments to the organization’s centrality
Main achievements
The Paris Agreement (2015): For the first time, nearly all nations agreed to limit global warming to well below 2°C, with an aspirational target of 1.5°C. Regular stocktakes, nationally determined contributions (NDCs), and climate finance pledges are overseen through the UNFCCC.
Global mobilization: The UN has coordinated mass mobilizations, such as the Climate Action Summits and COP conferences, to maintain political momentum and raise ambition—most notably with the upcoming COP30 in 2025 seeking to trigger a “new wave of global mobilization” on emissions, adaptation, and loss and damage finance.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Climate action is integrated into the 2030 Agenda’s 17 SDGs, emphasizing environmental sustainability across development programmings 2021
Criticisms of UN Climate Action
Yet the UN’s ability to force compliance or implement meaningful penalties for backsliding is extremely limited. Despite rhetoric and regular conferences, global emissions continue to rise, adaptation funding falls short of pledges, and the most vulnerable states (small island nations, least developed countries) remain at disproportionate risk. Critics argue that the consensus-based structure allows the lowest common denominator to shape outcomes, with powerful fossil fuel interests and major emitters able to dilute ambition or block meaningful enforcement.
Key UN initiatives at peacekeeping missions
Maintain/restore peace and security in Namibia, Mozambique, East Timor, Liberia—successful transitions
Successes in limited domains; faltered in complex conflicts
Humanitarian Operations (WFP, UNICEF)
Provide emergency food, health, shelter160 million+ aided annually; vaccination campaigns; education
Unmatched scale, but funding and access persistently limited
Paris Climate Agreement (2015)
Limit global temperature increase
Near-universal ratification; Regular
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
End poverty, promote equality, sustainability
Wide adoption; variable national progress Normative influence strong; actual targets off-track
Refugee Protection
The UN high commission for refugees (UNHCR)
Support for refugees/IDPs 35M+ protected; cross-border coordination
Core role in crisis response; resourcing lags behind need.
Special Tribunals (Rwanda, Yugoslavia)
Accountability for war crimes. Landmark indictments and convictions; foundation for ICC Legal precedent, but selectivity and enforcement remain ed a big challenge.
Despite uncontested strengths in setting global agendas, norms, and standards, the practical limitations in implementation, accountability, and resource mobilization continue to erode perceptions of the UN’s capacity to deliver in crisis moments.
Criticisms of UN effectiveness
Structural Weaknesses and Veto Politics
Perhaps the principal source of disenchantment with the UN’s effectiveness stems from the architecture of the Security Council, and the disproportionate power wielded by the P5. The frequent use of the veto—on issues ranging from Syria to Palestine, and, more recently, the Ukraine war—exposes the limits of collective security. Council paralysis has effectively shielded great power allies from censure and enabled persistent impunity for large-scale rights abuses or aggression.
Bureaucratic Inertia and Resource Constraints
Throughout its specialized agencies and secretariat, the UN is often beset by charges of inefficiency, overlapping mandates, and bureaucratic inflexibility. Coordination failures—sometimes amidst acute emergencies—have undercut both impact and cost-effectiveness. Despite ambitious funding targets, humanitarian, development, and peacekeeping budgets frequently fall short due to competing donor priorities, arrears, and a chronic “mismatch between mandate and means”
Selective Implementation and Allegations of Bias
Critics from the Global South and emerging powers allege that the UN’s actions reflect Western priorities and double standards, pointing to selective implementation of resolutions, and an overemphasis on issues aligned with Western security or human rights agendas. For example, resolutions on Israel and Palestine are recurrently blocked by US vetoes, even as other states face swift censure and sanction even leading to recognition of the Palestinian state by some Western states like the UK in view of the Gaza two year conflict with Hamas.
Scandals and Misconduct
Peacekeeper misconduct—ranging from sexual exploitation and abuse to bribery and corruption—has further damaged the UN’s moral standing. Although improved reporting procedures and codes of conduct have been instituted since the early 2000s, scandals in the Central African Republic, Haiti, and elsewhere have been persistent.
Limited enforcement power
The UN cannot compel sovereign states to act against their fundamental interests, particularly where military intervention is concerned. Deployments remain reliant on voluntary troop contributions and host state consent; resolutions lacking enforcement mechanisms often serve more as moral statements than actionable directives.
Regional perspectives
Africa
African states have a complicated relationship with the UN: they are both its greatest beneficiaries in humanitarian and peace operations, and its fiercest critics with regard to Security Council structure and responsiveness. African voices are often sidelined in major decision-making, despite the continent’s disproportionate prominence on the Council’s agenda. Notably, the AU-UN partnership in peacekeeping (Darfur, Mali, Central African Republic) has introduced new models for hybrid operations, yet funding, troop quality, and political will remain ongoing problems. Calls for permanent African representation in the Security Council have grown louder as part of broader reform debates.
Middle East
The Middle East hosts some of the UN’s longest-running peacekeeping missions and humanitarian operations, notably in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Syria, Yemen, and Palestine. Despite sustained engagement, the UN has struggled to achieve enduring conflict resolution in the face of major power rivalries—most damagingly exposed in the Syrian conflict, where repeated Russian and US vetoes stymied collective action. Arab states maintain a skeptical view of the UN’s impartiality, often accusing it of Western double standards or impotence. Nonetheless, the ongoing involvement in humanitarian and reconstruction efforts underscores the Organization’s continuing necessity, if not effectiveness, in the region.
.
Asia-Pacific
The Asia-Pacific region’s engagement with the UN is marked by both cooperation and contention. Peace operations in Cambodia and Timor-Leste remain standout successes, but continuing disputes over Myanmar, North Korea, and the South China Sea have highlighted divisions within the regional bloc—and between China and other major actors. The rise of new regional organizations, such as ASEAN, as well as the increased assertiveness of China, has added complexity to the UN’s role in the region. Asian states, especially India and Japan, are vocal advocates for Security Council reform, seeking permanent seats commensurate with their population and economic clout.
Western and European perspectives
Western states (the US, UK, EU members) have traditionally been central funders and agenda setters within the UN system. Yet growing skepticism within US and UK domestic politics—over costs, sovereignty, and effectiveness—has complicated support for unilateral intervention and deeper engagement. The European Union remains a staunch multilateralist and has called for reinvigorated cooperation, especially on human rights, climate, and development, but is also frustrated by gridlock on key security issues such as Russia and the Middle East
.
Perspectives from Russia and China
Moscow and Beijing have increasingly used their veto power to block Western initiatives they view as threatening to their interests or sovereignty (e.g., in Syria, Venezuela, Ukraine). They support a “multipolar” order and advocate for “non-interference in domestic affairs” as a counterpoint to what they see as Western overreach within the UN system. Both criticize the current order as a relic of post-World War II Western dominance, while paradoxically relying on their privileged status to shield client states and advance national interests. Nonetheless, both have supported limited UN expansion of peacekeeping and economic development roles, and China, in particular, has increased funding and contributions to UN peace operations in recent years.
Security Council Reform
Suggestions include expanding permanent seats to include countries from Africa, Asia, and Latin America (notably India, Brazil, South Africa, and Nigeria), curbing or abolishing the veto, and introducing rotation or weighted voting for new powers. The G4 (India, Germany, Japan, Brazil) and the African Union have put forward detailed reform blueprints, while recent BRICS communiqués endorse reform to “make the Council more effective and representative” .However, as any amendment requires the assent of the P5, substantive progress remains elusive; vested interests in preserving veto power have stymied movement.
Humanitarian and Development Frameworks
There is continuing advocacy for greater alignment between humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding work, notably through the “triple nexus” approach.
Future Outlook and Challenges
Security and Geopolitical Fracturing
The UN faces an era of heightened geopolitical rivalry, a resurgence of “great game” politics, and new forms of hybrid conflict. The Ukraine war, contestation in the South China Sea, worsening situations in the Sahel, and persistent Middle East conflicts underline the need for a new consensus on international order. In this environment, the constraints of the current veto system, coupled with eroding respect for multilateralism, pose existential challenges to the UN’s continued legitimacy and relevance.
Humanitarian and Climate Emergency
The accelerating pace of humanitarian disasters—driven by protracted conflicts, climate shocks, and global economic instability—will require ever deeper resources and innovative solutions. The UN’s ability to adapt, foster new partnerships, and maintain donor confidence will define its efficacy in crisis moments. Moreover, the ultimate test will be its ability to cohere global action on climate change, not as a mere forum, but as an engine for real-world decarbonization and resilience.
.
Technological and Institutional Innovation
The digital revolution presents both an opportunity and a challenge: the UN can harness new technologies for early warning, crisis response, and inclusion, but equally faces threats from cyber warfare, misinformation, and the rise of non-state actors who operate outside its jurisdiction. Institutional innovation—through better data, flexible mandates, and youth engagement—will be essential for ensuring continued relevance.
Reform and Renewal
Ultimately, the UN’s fate will depend on its ability to marshal the political will necessary for bold reform—especially in Security Council composition, working methods, and financing. Without this, the risk is a “least common denominator” institution: relevant as a symbol and for convening dialogue, but increasingly marginalized as an actor in the world’s most urgent crises
Conclusion
The United Nations at 80 is an institution caught between necessity and frustration, ambition and disillusion. The “toothless bulldog” label is both a reflection of its structural design—deliberately cautious, inclusive, and consensus-oriented—and an indictment of its persistent inability to prevent or resolve large-scale human suffering. Yet, to dismiss the UN as wholly ineffective belies the nuanced reality: it remains indispensable for providing humanitarian relief, setting global norms, and preventing the recurrence of world war—its original raison d’être. Its greatest failures are, ultimately, also a mirror of member state will and the unresolved dilemmas of sovereignty, security, and justice in international life.There is no equivalent alternative in sight for global governance, even as multipolarity and rivalry aggravate paralysis at the top. If the UN’s next decade is to break free from the “toothless bulldog” epithet, it will require the member states themselves—above all the most powerful—to finally align institutional architecture with contemporary realities. The world in 2025 both needs and deserves a United Nations that is not merely relevant, but genuinely effective: bold enough to fulfill its founding promise, but sufficiently reformed to overcome its weaknesses. Without such change, the frustrations and disappointments of the past 80 years risk becoming the default state of multilateral affairs for decades to come.
The writer can be reached at abubakardamari@gmail.com
