Ten Challenges for the United Nations in 2024-2025 (2)

Sudan Events – Agencies 

The Security Council
The conflict between Hamas and Israel has reshaped diplomacy in the Security Council, putting the United States on the defensive. After facing extended public criticism from the U.S. and its allies in the U.N. over its assault on Ukraine, Russia was quick to accuse Washington of double standards in its approach to the two wars. Other Council members, shaken by the brutality of Hamas on October 7, initially tried to keep the U.S. engaged in their efforts to call for a ceasefire. However, the U.S. soon made it clear that it did not see a role for the U.N. in resolving the conflict. The U.S. vetoed two draft resolutions calling for a temporary or full halt to the fighting and found ways to block other resolutions. By the end of 2023, the U.S. was largely isolated, with only partial support from the U.K. Concerned about damaging the Council’s credibility, elected members — led by Malta and the UAE — succeeded in persuading the U.S. not to veto two separate resolutions focusing solely on the humanitarian aspects of the conflict.
The U.S. position began to shift in the first quarter of 2024, as the Biden administration grew increasingly frustrated with the ongoing war and its humanitarian consequences. In March, the U.S. finally agreed to abstain from voting on a brief resolution — again drafted by the Council’s elected members — calling for a ceasefire. However, American reluctance to give the U.N. a political role in the conflict persisted, and in April, Washington again used its veto, blocking a draft resolution recommending that Palestine be accepted as a U.N. member. Finally, in June, the U.S. administration found common ground with other Council members, succeeding in passing a resolution calling for a phased ceasefire. But the previously hardline stance taken by the U.S. toward Israel — and the general perception that the president and his advisors were sidelining the U.N. — caused long-term damage to the U.S.’s reputation at U.N. headquarters.
The bitter battles with the U.S. over Gaza diverted attention from other concerning trends that some Council members believed deserved greater focus. Chief among these trends is Russia’s increasing willingness to obstruct the Council’s work on issues beyond Ukraine in order to support its allies and destabilize the West. After already vetoing resolutions concerning Mali and Syria in 2023, Russia blocked the renewal of sanctions monitoring on North Korea in March. This move was partly in response to Pyongyang’s provision of ammunition to Russian forces in Ukraine in 2023 and partly an attempt to reduce international oversight of what appeared to be sanctions violations. But this decision surprised Council members, who had thought Moscow would continue relying on China to manage this sanctions regime.
This incident heightened Western concerns that Russia would assert itself more aggressively on other Council issues and that China would tolerate or implicitly accept its disruptive behavior. For now, neither power wants to appear as a direct spoiler. Both raise objections to Council decisions on sanctions and peacekeeping, but often settle for abstaining on these texts. This approach is gaining momentum, as China’s and Russia’s skeptical attitudes toward sanctions align with those of African Council members, who complain that U.N. measures such as arms embargoes violate the sovereignty and interests of governments in their continent.
Mired in confrontations over Gaza and Ukraine, Security Council members accepted setbacks elsewhere with a sense of fatalism. After Mali’s decision to expel peacekeepers from its territory in 2023, Sudan’s government forced the U.N. to shut down its political mission in December amid the country’s escalating civil war. In May, the Council agreed to push Baghdad to close the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq, which had been in place for two decades, by the fall of 2025. Somalia has also called for the end of the U.N.’s political mission in Mogadishu, although the terms of its closure are still under discussion.
Nonetheless, most Security Council members are unwilling to allow great power rivalries to halt cooperation completely, and they have managed to achieve some breakthroughs in the face of adversity. In December 2023, African Council members negotiated a resolution with the U.S. to pave the way for U.N. funding of African Union-led peace operations. Latin American Council members worked with Washington to promote the deployment of a Kenyan-led multinational security force to Haiti. Although the Council has largely failed to provide a serious response to the biggest current crises, it has not yet allowed the U.N. to slip into complete paralysis. Some diplomats also hope that other parts of the U.N. system, such as the Peacebuilding Commission — which works amicably with fragile states — might find openings to address issues that divide the Council.
B. The General Assembly and the International Court of Justice
Frustrated by the Security Council’s deteriorating situation, U.N. members have turned to the General Assembly to address recent crises. In 2022 and early 2023, the Assembly passed a series of resolutions condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by a large majority. After October 7, it shifted its focus to Gaza, calling twice for a cessation of hostilities after U.S. vetoes in the Council. In May, the Assembly also responded to the U.S. veto against Palestine’s U.N. membership by passing a resolution by a large majority that granted Palestinians special privileges in Assembly procedures. There was also a serious, though short-lived, debate among Assembly members in April about whether the Assembly could establish a mechanism to monitor sanctions on North Korea after Russia vetoed Security Council action. Japan and South Korea opposed this option, but the discussion was another sign of U.N. members’ growing interest in bypassing the Security Council if necessary.
C. Parallel Diplomacy and Alternatives to the United Nations
Amid rising tensions within the Security Council, many nations are exploring alternative diplomatic channels. In 2024-2025, we might see an increase in the number of regional and international diplomatic forums that aim to address issues where the Security Council has failed to reach consensus. For instance, groups like the “G20,” the “African Union,” and the “European Union” may play a growing role in resolving regional conflicts and economic disputes.
New multilateral diplomatic initiatives could also emerge, particularly in areas such as climate change, cybersecurity, and international migration. While the United Nations remains the primary platform for international cooperation, growing deadlock within the Security Council may push countries to develop alternative mechanisms to achieve their diplomatic goals and tackle emerging global challenges.
On the other hand, these alternatives may pose a threat to the U.N.’s central role as a global organization, increasing pressure on the Security Council and the General Assembly to reform their structures and mechanisms to enhance efficiency and transparency.
Ultimately, the challenge facing the United Nations in the 2024-2025 period reflects a crisis of trust between its members and its institutions. While the U.N. continues to provide platforms for dialogue and international cooperation, it must confront these significant challenges by strengthening its existing diplomatic mechanisms and adapting its structure and mandate to meet the demands of the times.
D. Challenges of Reforming the U.N. System
Efforts to reform the U.N., particularly the Security Council, have long been a point of contention among member states. Calls for reform have become more urgent, especially with the increased paralysis on key global issues. In 2024-2025, these calls are likely to grow louder, with various countries pushing for changes to make the U.N. more representative and effective.
One of the most pressing demands is for the expansion of the Security Council’s permanent membership. Countries like India, Brazil, and South Africa have argued for years that the Council’s composition no longer reflects the current global power dynamics. With the geopolitical landscape shifting, these countries are advocating for permanent seats, alongside those already held by the U.S., China, Russia, the U.K., and France. However, reforming the Council requires the approval of a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly and agreement among the current permanent members, which makes any substantial change a difficult and slow process.
There are also calls for limiting the use of the veto power by the permanent members. France, for instance, has suggested that permanent members voluntarily refrain from using their veto in cases involving mass atrocities or serious violations of international law. However, this idea has faced resistance from the other permanent members, particularly Russia and the U.S., who view the veto as a critical tool for protecting their national interests.
E. Financial Strains and Resource Allocation
In addition to diplomatic challenges, the U.N. faces financial strains that may affect its ability to operate effectively in 2024-2025. The organization relies heavily on member state contributions, and in recent years, delays in payments and insufficient funding have hampered its ability to carry out peacekeeping missions, humanitarian aid, and other critical operations.
A growing number of U.N. member states are becoming increasingly frustrated with how resources are allocated. Some countries argue that too much of the U.N.’s budget is dedicated to administration and overhead, while not enough is directed toward fieldwork and urgent crises. Additionally, with more frequent and severe humanitarian emergencies worldwide — including climate-induced disasters, refugee crises, and armed conflicts — the U.N. is struggling to meet the rising demand for its services.
In response, there have been proposals to reform the U.N.’s funding mechanisms. Some countries suggest creating alternative funding streams through voluntary contributions from the private sector or international organizations. Others advocate for stronger accountability and transparency measures to ensure that U.N. funds are being used effectively and efficiently.
F. The Role of Emerging Technologies
In the face of these diplomatic and financial challenges, the U.N. will also need to grapple with the growing influence of emerging technologies, which are transforming international relations and global governance. Issues such as cybersecurity, artificial intelligence (AI), and the digital economy are becoming central to global diplomacy.
The U.N. has made some strides in addressing these topics, but many believe that it needs to take a more active and coordinated role. The potential for AI and other technologies to affect areas like warfare, privacy, and the global economy means that the U.N. will need to establish clearer international norms and regulations to ensure these technologies are used responsibly. However, achieving consensus on these issues is difficult, given the divergent interests of member states.
Moreover, the digital divide remains a significant challenge, with many developing countries lacking access to the infrastructure and resources needed to participate in the global digital economy. The U.N. will need to address these inequalities and ensure that technological advancements benefit all countries, not just the wealthiest and most technologically advanced.
Conclusion
As the U.N. moves into 2024-2025, it faces a wide range of challenges, from internal divisions in the Security Council to financial and technological pressures. While the organization continues to serve as a critical platform for international cooperation, it must adapt to the changing global landscape. This will require reforms to its institutions, improved resource management, and a stronger focus on emerging issues like technology and global inequality.
The ability of the U.N. to address these challenges will determine whether it can maintain its relevance and effectiveness in an increasingly complex and divided world. Whether through diplomatic breakthroughs, financial reforms, or innovations in global governance, the organization will need to demonstrate resilience and adaptability in the face of ongoing crises and the shifting international order.