THE ASIAN INDEPENDENT UK
Bal Ram Sampla
Geopolitics
The United Nations was born from the ashes of World War II, designed by the victorious powers to prevent another global catastrophe. For its time, it was revolutionary. But today, eight decades later, we must ask ourselves: can an institution frozen in 1945 effectively address the challenges of 2026?
Norway’s Prime Minister has posed a question that deserves our attention: “Why should India accept a 1945 club?” It’s a fair challenge. The world has changed beyond recognition since the UN’s founding, yet its most powerful body, the Security Council, remains unchanged. Five nations hold permanent seats with veto power, while the rest of the world watches from the sidelines.
Consider what’s different now. In 1945, much of Asia, Africa, and the developing world lived under colonial rule. Today, these regions are home to most of humanity and drive much of global growth. India, which gained independence only in 1947, is now the world’s most populous nation and a major economy. Yet it has no permanent voice in the Security Council. Neither does any African nation, despite Africa’s 1.4 billion people. Latin America, too, remains unrepresented among the permanent members.
This isn’t just about fairness, though fairness matters. It’s about effectiveness. When global institutions don’t reflect global reality, they lose legitimacy. When billions of people see themselves excluded from the rooms where crucial decisions are made, why should they respect those decisions? The UN was created to bring nations together, but its current structure pushes many away.
The challenges we face today demand cooperation from all corners of the globe. Climate change doesn’t respect the borders of 1945’s great powers. Pandemics spread regardless of Security Council membership. Nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and economic instability require solutions that work for everyone, not just a select few. We cannot solve 21st-century problems with a 20th-century power structure.
Reform won’t be easy. The very nations that benefit from the current system control whether it changes. But difficulty is not an excuse for inaction. Other institutions have adapted over time. The European Union expanded. NATO evolved. The G7 became the G20 to include emerging economies. The UN must do the same or risk becoming irrelevant.
The Norwegian Prime Minister’s words remind us that clinging to old arrangements serves no one in the long run. Even the current permanent members should recognize that a more representative UN would be a stronger, more effective UN. Real leadership means knowing when to share power to achieve common goals.
The question isn’t whether the UN should change. It’s whether we have the wisdom and courage to make it happen before the institution that was meant to unite the world becomes a relic of a bygone era.
References
1.https://youtu.be/AVK16hLhC4c?si=nm40C7rJo1nn-5nn
