The Fraying Thread: Multilateralism at a Crossroads

Formerly UN Under-Secretary-General for Communications, candidate for UN Secretary General and currently an Indian Member of Parliament, author and diplomat.

Author: Shashi Tharoor

When the United Nations marked its 80th anniversary last October, reports described the mood at the General Assembly in New York as anything but celebratory. The hall that once echoed with the optimism of postwar reconstruction, decolonisation and peacekeeping, instead reverberated with uncertainty, frustration, and quiet alarm. The institution that symbolized the triumph of diplomacy over destruction now finds itself confronting a world increasingly sceptical of its relevance—and a founding member, the United States, seemingly intent on retreat, with another founding member, Russia, conducting an all-out war on its neighbour, Ukraine.

The signs are stark. The U.S. has withdrawn from key global bodies, including the Human Rights Council and UNESCO, and has frozen or slashed funding to others, including an estimated 80% reduction in its contributions to UN programmes. It has vetoed Security Council resolutions on Gaza, revoked and refused visas of Palestinian officials, and embarked on a war on Iran without the Security Council’s approval and sidestepping legal provisions or justification under the UN Charter. These challenges to the Charter follow on the heels of Russia’s full-scale war on Ukraine, now in its fifth year. President Trump’s address on the opening day of the UNGA session questioned the very premises of multilateral engagement.

This erosion of multilateralism comes at a time when the world is in desperate need of coordinated action. Conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, Iran and elsewhere rage with little hope of resolution. A kind of peace was reached in Gaza, with the Security Council’s stamp, but to be implemented outside the UN framework. Climate change accelerates, inequality deepens, and technological disruption outpaces governance. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called it a “global crisis", warning that “geopolitical divides do not allow us to effectively address them”.

So, is multilateralism on the verge of collapse? And can the UN survive the growing diagnoses of its irrelevance?

To answer this, we must first understand what multilateralism has meant—and what it has become. At its core, multilateralism is the belief that global problems (what the late UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called “problems without passports”) require global solutions, negotiated through institutions that give voice to all nations, regardless of size or power. It is a system built on sovereign equality, mutual respect, and the rule of law. The UN General Assembly, where each of the 193 member states casts one vote, remains the most visible embodiment of this ideal.

Yet the ideal has always been tempered by reality. The UN’s structure—particularly the Security Council’s veto power—enshrines inequality. Its resolutions are often non-binding, its enforcement mechanisms weak. The General Assembly, for all its symbolism, is frequently dismissed as a forum for posturing rather than problem-solving. And the Council itself is seen as reflecting the geopolitical realities of 1945, not 2026.

Still, the UN has achieved much. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Climate Agreement— all emerged from multilateral processes. The UN has coordinated humanitarian relief, led successful peacekeeping missions, helped conclude dozens of international treaties, and promoted global health responses. It has provided a platform for smaller nations to speak, and for larger ones to listen — however perfunctorily.

But today, the system is fraying. The decline of US commitment, the rise of regional blocs, and the fragmentation of diplomatic norms have all weakened the multilateral fabric. The U.S.–China rivalry casts a long shadow, with both powers increasingly pursuing bilateral or “mini-lateral” arrangements with like-minded partners. Russia’s defiance of international norms in Ukraine and Israel’s intransigence in Gaza further undermine the credibility of global institutions. Even within Europe, once a bastion of multilateralism, nationalist currents challenge the consensus.

In this context, the UN risks becoming a relic—an institution with noble intentions but limited influence. Yet collapse is not inevitable. Multilateralism may be wounded, but it is not dead. The very fact that world leaders continue to gather in New York, to speak, negotiate, and deliberate, suggests that the need for global dialogue remains. The UN80 initiative, launched last year, aims to streamline mandates, cut costs, and restore public trust. Institutional reform is on the agenda—not as a luxury, but as a necessity.

Moreover, the crisis of multilateralism is not just institutional—it is philosophical. It reflects a deeper tension between global interdependence and national sovereignty, between (in David Goodhart’s formulation) the “anywheres” who thrive in a borderless world and the “somewheres” who feel left behind. Goodhart’s thesis resonates here: the “somewheres”, rooted in place, religion and tradition, are increasingly sceptical of global elites and distant institutions. Their political ascendancy— from Brexit to Trumpism—has reshaped the landscape in which multilateralism must operate.

In this sense, the future of multilateralism depends not only on reforming institutions but on rebuilding legitimacy. It must speak to the concerns of ordinary citizens, not just diplomats. It must demonstrate that global cooperation can deliver tangible benefits—jobs, security, dignity—not just abstract norms. It must become less technocratic and more empathetic.

There is little doubt that today’s world is one of “polycrisis”, where the very basic assumptions of this structure have been challenged. Neither have conflicts been averted before they become critical, nor has cooperation been properly fostered, with global institutions unable to transcend the disagreements among key member states. And the system itself has not evolved in step with the emergence of newer forces on the global scene.

The challenge, then, is to imagine a multilateralism that is principled yet pragmatic, inclusive yet effective. This requires leadership—not just from the United States and China, but from emerging powers, regional coalitions, and civil society. India, for instance, has an opportunity to champion a more equitable global order, rooted in the values of sovereignty, solidarity, and sustainable development. We can contribute our expertise and leadership to global discussions on issues ranging from cyberspace to outer space.

The stakes are clear. The world is not short of crises—but it is short of cooperation. The UN may be imperfect, but as the legendary Dag Hammarskjold put it, the UN was “not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.” It may have been unable to do so on occasion, but it remains the only forum where all nations can come together to address the world’s problems. To abandon it would be to abandon the very idea of our common humanity.

Multilateralism may be fraying, but it is also evolving. Redesigning the UN system may seem to be a lost cause, but redesigning priorities in a way that global interests can be championed within minilateral or plurilateral groupings is not a far-fetched possibility. We can’t wait for UN reform anymore, but in this process of transition, global governance itself is being redefined.

The survival of multilateralism depends not on nostalgia, but on renewal. And that renewal begins with the recognition that in an interconnected world, no nation is truly sovereign unless all are.