There seems to be growing polarization in the echo chambers of the internet about the legitimacy of these organizations, with some questioning whether the UN is anything more than beautiful, crumbling real estate.

President Trump has been involved in brokering ceasefires and peace agreements in several regions such as Israel and Iran, where a brief conflict in June 2025 ended with a U.S.-mediated ceasefire; Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where a peace deal was announced in June 2025; Thailand and Cambodia, which agreed to a ceasefire in July 2025; and Armenia and Azerbaijan, which signed a joint peace declaration in August 2025. Many of these agreements are fragile or not final. Tensions remain between India and Pakistan, Egypt and Ethiopia, and there was no significant conflict between Serbia and Kosovo. Meanwhile, the world continues to watch ongoing crises in Ukraine and Russia, as well as Israel and Palestine.

Recently, the President addressed the United Nations, and among the many things he said, his comments on the effectiveness of international organizations stood out the most. They raise an important question: how legitimate are these institutions in an era of political polarization and echo chambers?

You might then ask, if President Trump managed to end “seven wars” in less than a year of his presidency, why can’t the United Nations, the organization meant to safeguard world peace, do the same?

Well, the UN can’t just pick up the phone like the Commander in Chief of the world’s most powerful democracy.

1. International organizations like the United Nations (UN), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are intergovernmental organizations (IGOs). This means they are created by agreements between sovereign states and exist to facilitate cooperation, set rules, or provide services that member countries agree to follow. Resolutions, treaties, or mandates issued by international organizations are not automatically binding on member states; countries must agree to or ratify them for the rules to take full effect.
2. The UN Security Council gives five permanent members the U.S., Russia, China, the UK, and France with veto power, meaning any one of them can block a resolution, even if all other members support it. This ensures that major powers can protect their interests, but it also often prevents the UN from taking action on conflicts or human rights violations.
3. The process of ending a war through the UN is usually long and complex, often taking years or even decades. It involves negotiations between conflicting parties, drafting and passing Security Council resolutions, deploying peacekeeping forces, monitoring ceasefires, and ensuring compliance, all of which can be slowed by political disagreements, vetoes from permanent members, and limited resources.

Then you can ask: if countries like the U.S. are members of the World Trade Organization, how can they inflate trade prices and ignore mandates? And if they are members of the UN, how have human rights violations in the Middle East and the U.S. military’s killing of civilians gone largely uninvestigated?

The U.S., while a member of the WTO and the UN, has at times imposed tariffs or trade measures considered violations and participated in military actions causing civilian deaths in the Middle East. Enforcement of WTO rules relies on member cooperation, and UN investigations are often limited by structural constraints like Security Council vetoes. As a result, powerful states can act with limited accountability, even when rules and documentation exist.

Isn’t that hypocrisy? 

It can certainly be seen that way. When powerful countries are members of international organizations and publicly support their rules, yet act in ways that undermine those same rules like imposing controversial trade measures or avoiding UN investigations it highlights a gap between rhetoric and action. In other words, it exposes the limits of international institutions when superpowers can effectively ignore or bypass them, which many perceive as hypocritical.

For example, the UN can pass resolutions urging peace, but sovereign states like the U.S., Russia, or China can ignore them or veto actions that threaten their interests. This is why smaller countries often comply (because they have more to lose), while powerful nations exercise their sovereignty to resist, override, or reshape international rules to their advantage. 

Since 1945, the United States has cast roughly 89 vetoes in the UN Security Council, and more than half of them were related to Israel and Palestine. In fact, about 33 vetoes specifically blocked resolutions addressing Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories or its treatment of Palestinians. Most recently, between 2023 and 2025, the U.S. repeatedly vetoed Security Council resolutions calling for cease-fires in Gaza including a sixth veto in September 2025 against a resolution demanding an “immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire.”

These figures show that the power of veto held by permanent members of the Security Council, particularly the U.S., can effectively neuter collective action even when nearly all other countries agree. While international organizations like the UN are designed to promote peace, justice, and cooperation, they are structurally constrained when a superpower persistently uses its veto to block resolutions.

Thus, when anyone claims that “ending wars” or “enforcing peace” should be easy for global institutions, these examples suggest otherwise: authority and influence often still lie with individual nation-states. The UN may pass resolutions, but its enforcement depends heavily on whether powerful states allow them to take effect.

Can there be changes? Yes, of course. 

But the answer is not to dismantle international organizations altogether. For all their flaws, institutions like the United Nations remain the only global platforms where nations large and small can debate, negotiate, and attempt to resolve conflicts under a shared framework. Reforming structures such as the veto power, strengthening enforcement mechanisms, and ensuring greater accountability could help international organizations live closer to their original mandate. While superpowers will always wield disproportionate influence, the collective voice of the international community is still vital for addressing global crises that no single nation can solve alone.

It is often easier for a U.S. president to negotiate a peace treaty directly with other countries because they can leverage economic and political tools, such as tariffs, trade agreements, or military support, to influence outcomes. In contrast, international organizations like the United Nations operate through a slow, consensus-driven process that involves investigations, hearings, and drafting resolutions that must be ratified by member states. This multilateral approach, while essential for legitimacy and fairness, often limits the ability of these institutions to act quickly or decisively, especially when powerful nations have the ability to block or veto proposals.