Author: msouzama

A World Without a Referee: Why Dissolving the UN Would Deepen Global Chaos | By Maria Alice Souza Maia

msouzama

Abstract: The UN General Assembly meeting showed that countries are willing to change how the international system operates, but not for the better. The mission of peace and commitment to human rights must remain strong, even amid increasingly hostile rhetoric from global superpowers.

How can the United Nations restore global trust when its own General Assembly becomes a place for augmenting international divisions? The United Nations General Assembly met from September 8 to September 28, 2026. Delegations from 194 countries were represented and met under the theme of “Restoring trust, managing transformation: A United Nations that delivers for all”. In his speech, UN Secretary-General António Guterres addressed four critical issues: artificial intelligence, climate action, sustainable development goals, and global health and security. During the assembly, some speeches drew fierce condemnation.  Two examples of speeches that generated protests were those by Israel and the United States. President Donald Trump said that his other choice is to “annihilate the Islamic Republic” and that he plans to establish a “large military presence” on Greenland.  Israel’s speech addressed the genocide in Gaza, describing it as “the biggest lie of the century” and the invasion of Iran as “one of the easiest decisions I’ve ever had to make.” Multiple delegations left the assembly as a form of protest against Israel’s speech.1

Moreover, the speeches were marked by different narratives from the same situation: Israel and the Palestinian leader; President Vladimir Zelenskyy of Ukraine and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov; President Donald Trump and Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian.2 These speeches shaped the thematic agenda of the General Assembly. With three major wars happening in the world right now, several civil conflicts and dozens of genocide cases being investigated. These sharp divisions call into question whether the UN can still function as an effective instrument of collective security.

The theme of this General Assembly was overshadowed by the tensions among some of the present countries, but behind the scenes, a proposal to dissolve the UN and start a new world organization was being discussed.3 The UN faces its most serious crisis since 1945, dealing with a low budget and a transition to a new secretary-general. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres cut the budget by 15% for this year, 2026. This is because a lot of countries, including the U.S., didn’t pay their dues, ending the last year with $1.57 billion in outstanding dues.4 The UN General Assembly is a more diplomatic and representative stage than the Security Council and its five permanent member states. Many countries see the UN as an ineffective organization that, amid several conflicts, shows inaction and, when faced with legal procedures on crimes, fails to enforce the law under the UN Charter. The organization’s crisis of legitimacy is further exacerbated by long-standing structural underrepresentation. For instance, African nations comprise 28% of total UN member states (54 out of 193) and represent over 1.4 billion people, yet lack a single permanent seat on the Security Council.5

However, would the true solution be a full makeover? Wouldn’t a reform solve the problem?6 A UN reform has been called for decades now, and little has been done regarding this claim. So, it is not a surprise that some countries are advocating for this approach. However, there are some counterarguments to these demands. First, realist International Relations theory posits that the global system is fundamentally anarchic. Without an overarching international authority, multilateral bodies like the UN serve as essential de-escalation forums rather than a coercive world police.7 So, when conflicts break out, there is no world police to call for help or assistance with a task force. The UN serves as a peacekeeping force and source of diplomacy and negotiation to help states navigate the nature of the international system. 

Ultimately, preserving and reforming the existing UN architecture remains the only practical safeguard against global instability. Since its creation, it has helped develop and create education and healthcare systems, peacekeeping missions, and holding perpetrators accountable through international legal mechanisms. Going back to the past and adopting a new system that would generate even more insecurity and violations of human rights is not what the world needs right now.  Dismantling the referee does not end the game; it merely leaves raw power as the only rule on the field. Remaining at the table sends a far stronger signal than walking away.

  1. CNN, “United Nations General Assembly: Trump,” CNN, September 22, 2026.  ↩︎
  2. CNN, “United Nations General Assembly: Iran, Trump, Ukraine,” CNN, September 23, 2026.  ↩︎
  3. Bruno Cardoso Reis et al., “What’s at Stake at UNGA 2026?” Brookings Institution, September 23, 2026.   ↩︎
  4. Vibhu Mishra, “UN Faces ‘Race to Bankruptcy’ as Guterres Unveils Sharply Reduced 2026 Budget,” UN News, October 17, 2025.  ↩︎
  5. Andrew Stanley, “African Century,” Finance & Development, International Monetary Fund, September 2023.  ↩︎
  6. Howard, Lise Morjé. “Peacekeeping, Peace Enforcement, and UN Reform.” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 16, no. 2 (2015): 6–13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43773690. ↩︎
  7. Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. ↩︎

Who Should Defend Europe? Rethinking the U.S.-NATO Relationship | By Maria Alice Souza Maia

msouzama

Abstract: The United States may not need NATO, but NATO definitely needs the United States. This relationship is harming European defense capabilities and preventing them from taking action regarding the Ukraine conflict.

Between July 7 and July 8, 2026, the 2026 NATO Summit was held in Ankara, Turkey.1 President Trump claimed that there was “tremendous love in that room”.2 However, this loving atmosphere was not present during his March 2026 statement when President Trump posted on Truth Social that NATO was making a “very foolish mistake” by declining to help the United States in its conflict with Iran.3 This statement leads to a lot of questions: why should NATO help if the United States is not under direct attack? Should NATO get involved just to prevent Iran from advancing its uranium enrichment system? Yet, the most important question is: What should NATO do about the war in Ukraine? 

Since February 2022, Ukraine has been under constant attack from Russia. There have been 1.5 million casualties on both sides, 5.9 million Ukrainians registered as refugees, and a daily cost of the war of $190 million for Ukraine.4 Yet, with a massive war on its continent and the imminent threat of Russian attack, the question remains: why should NATO help assist the U.S. against Iran and not assist Ukraine?  The answer lies in a truth NATO refuses to face: the United States does not need NATO, but NATO cannot survive without the United States. Everything the United States does directly benefits NATO, such as switching a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier in Asia to the Mediterranean to help NATO in a crisis. So, maybe it is understandable for the U.S. to demand NATO’s help during one of its most major conflicts in the last 5 years, considering that the U.S. spends 16% of its defense spending in NATO while most of the NATO countries invest only 5% of their GDP in security measures for the alliance.5, 6

Therefore, taking into account the numbers mentioned and the current situation, should European countries start taking more action to defend themselves? And then, is NATO still a useful organization? Firstly, the European Union’s defense spending is €454 billion in 2026, which is equivalent to 2.2% of GDP,7 compared with NATO’s 5% of GDP spent on defense, which was agreed during the 2026 summit. Even though EU defense spending increased by 75.3% since 2021, it has been shown that it is not enough to contain Russia and the threat that it poses to the entire European continent. NATO can protect the countries that signed the treaty, but it’s the EU’s mission to maintain peace and stability within Europe, even though the war has reached its fourth year and has no end in sight, alongside Russia’s hybrid attacks on Europe this past week.8 Also, looking at the data, the EU’s reliance on NATO and, therefore, on the United States, reinforces the lack of commitment to the continent’s security through its small contribution to Europe’s defense spending. 

As for the second question, the United States’ defense budget reached nearly $2.63 trillion this year, and its status as a major power in the Western world sets the U.S. in a position as the financial anchor of NATO.9 Moreover, NATO does not need a full shutdown; it needs less reliance on the United States and a reform that focuses its attention on the conflicts happening in the North Atlantic territory. 

Therefore, instead of flattering the United States with compliments every time there is a NATO Summit, the alliance should focus on restructuring its core values such as individual liberty, democracy, and human rights.10 The reform should focus on a future where Russia could dominate Europe and address the current crisis in Ukraine, with consistent negotiations with the United States about the current situation and the main priorities of the alliance, the concerns of European countries, and introducing a slow detachment from the U.S., proposing a reduction of its contribution to NATO’s defense budget.

  1. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. “The Ankara Summit Declaration.” NATO, July 8, 2026. https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2026/07/08/the-ankara-summit-declaration ↩︎
  2. The Guardian. “Erratic Trump Dominates Final Hours of NATO Summit.” July 8, 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/08/erratic-trump-dominates-final-hours-nato-summit ↩︎
  3. BBC News. “NATO Summit.” 2026 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0434932w ↩︎
  4. Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Russia-Ukraine War in 10 Charts.” CSIS. https://www.csis.org/analysis/russia-ukraine-war-10-charts  ↩︎
  5. Reuters. “Fact Check: US Contributes 16% to NATO Annual Budget, Not Two-Thirds.” May 31, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/us-contributes-16-nato-annual-budget-not-two-thirds-2024-05-31/  ↩︎
  6. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. “Defence Expenditures and NATO’s 5% Commitment.” NATO. https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/defence-expenditures-and-natos-5-commitment ↩︎
  7. Council of the European Union. “Defence Numbers.” European Union https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/defence-numbers/ ↩︎
  8. “Russia Warns Europe as Ukraine War Continues.” The New York Times, September 24, 2026. New York Times article   ↩︎
  9. U.S. Department of Defense. “Department of Defense.” USAspending.gov usaspending.gov/agency/department-of-defense  ↩︎
  10. Michaels, Jeffrey H. “The Nato Experience.” In Deterrence Warning Messages: A Short Guide for NATO, edited by Tim Sweijs. Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, 2025. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep70752 ↩︎