It cannot continue like this. That is the aftertaste of the UN annual meeting that ends today. The call for reforms - especially within the Security Council - is louder than ever.
Because at this moment the United Nations is crippled, according to government leaders and geopolitical experts. The structure of five countries with permanent veto rights does not work. And the composition of that Security Council does not do justice to the rapidly changing geopolitical relations.
XXL meeting without breakthrough
For a week, New York was the scene of an XXL event where diplomats and politicians from 193 countries participated. They met for days but did not achieve a breakthrough on any major theme.
The Chinese leader Xi did not even show up, but was several hundred kilometers away at the White House. There he met President Trump, who did take the UN podium and mainly used it to criticize that same UN. Earlier, he had already withdrawn his country from 31 UN organizations.
This confirms the growing image of the UN as a toothless tiger. That is why several countries last week in New York advocated for drastic reforms of the Security Council, which consists of five permanent members: the US, China, Russia, France and Great Britain.
After World War II
The UN was founded in 1945 with the aim of promoting peace. As of 2026, virtually every independent country is a member.
The UN Security Council consists of five permanent members and ten rotating members. The body can impose diplomatic and military sanctions and establish peace missions. But the members have veto rights, which means that such measures often do not proceed at the insistence of one country. For example, Russia blocked attempts last decade to combat the Syrian Assad regime and the US vetoed shortly after the October 7 attacks a call for a ceasefire in Gaza.
The power position of that group of great powers is no longer of this time, argued Turkish President Erdogan. "There are more than five countries in the world." He was supported by Finnish President Stubb, who proposes to supplement the Security Council with countries from Africa, Latin America and Asia/Oceania. And 'our' Prime Minister Jetten said that the "balance of power" must be adjusted "to the changing times."
These calls are not exactly new. At the beginning of this century, then UN chief Kofi Annan already proposed expanding the Security Council with several permanent members, but that did not happen because the intended new members such as Germany and India were upset that they would not receive veto rights.
More than twenty years later, the need to reform is much more urgent, says geopolitical analyst Alex Krijger. "We have organized everything as if it is still 1945. With Europe as the center of the world. But 85 percent of the world's population does not live in the West."
Nico Schrijver also finds change "urgently needed." He is emeritus professor of International Public Law at Leiden University and has worked for the UN in the past. "The organization has suffered shipwreck when it comes to peace and security. The UN has been in troubled waters more often, but this weather is very severe."
French President Macron - who is thus in the Security Council - also finds change necessary. Japan, India and an African country must join the highest body, he said last week.
But is he also willing to give up his own Security Council seat? No, says Schrijver. "That is like pulling a dead horse." Yet according to Krijger, that is exactly what must happen. "There is something deeply arrogant in Europeans. We think we can still call the shots as we did for hundreds of years."
That attitude is "unjust" and moreover "extremely dangerous" for us, thinks Krijger. "Europe has never appeared so weak. The Russia conflict is escalating and our dependence on Asia and the US is growing. Precisely for that reason, we must, based on equality and respect, reach out to the global South, to countries that have said many times that they want to help with issues like Gaza and Ukraine."
Professor Schrijver emphasizes that there are also other, less drastic reform options than taking away veto rights. For example, by making large countries semi-permanent members or considering a veto 'valid' only when at least two countries express it.
Is there a chance that the UN will ever cease to exist? "That would surprise me. Yes, I am concerned about the future of the UN. But I have been concerned before."