“The United Nations was not created to take us into paradise, but rather, to save humanity from hell.”
The above quotation is claimed to be from Dag Hammarskjold, the second Secretary General of the UN from April 1953 until his death in a plane crash in September 1961. This quotation represents the realities we are facing today as humanity – with an increased number of wars, the climate crisis, and uneven development that affect the rest of the planet –it seems that humans are walking towards hell. Increasingly, it is becoming evident that human beings are highly incapable of living with themselves, each other, and nature. As a species, humans have arrived at a juncture in which they need to be saved from themselves!
On 24 October 2025, the United Nations (UN) marks its 80th anniversary — a significant milestone since its formation in 1945. The authors argue that what is commonly referred to as World War II was, in essence, a European war. Due to the vast colonies at Europe’s disposal, it had the reach to eventually become World War II. The devastation that followed this conflict generated an unprecedented consensus to establish mechanisms of protection, which culminated in the drafting and signing of the UN Charter. This milestone opens a space to step back and assess the effectiveness and relevance of this global governance architecture against modern-day challenges. Despite the passage of time, we doubt that any of the 50 national representatives who gathered in San Francisco in 1945 could have foreseen a post-UN world beset by more active conflicts than at any point in recent history and contemporary times. According to Data from the Global Peace Index by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), there are 59 active conflicts globally.[1] Hence, the following question becomes highly relevant: Is the United Nations the appropriate global apparatus for the prevention of wars, global order and the fostering of global prosperity through collaboration among nations?
The trajectory of the UN over the last 80 years has been anything but straightforward. Nevertheless, the core prevention and punishment mechanisms such as the 1948 Genocide Convention, which provided a legal definition of systematic mass killings based on identity, remain significant achievements. In light of these successes, together with the UN’s internal expansion and external reach, one might reasonably expect it to have developed the necessary capacity to foster peace and protection for all, without exclusion and discrimination. And it is the ‘all’, which is emphasised in this piece. At a time when Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians, and Sudan’s ongoing civil war has created the world’s largest and fastest-growing displacement, we are no longer dealing with a fragmentation of peace, but with a system in the process of collapse.[2] While Gaza, Sudan, and Ukraine are receiving considerable attention, the crises in Central African Republic, Mozambique, Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan continue without much attention. Droughts, floods, and increased poverty-related crises in many parts of Asia, Africa, Latin/South America, and West Asia (Middle East) do not receive space in the global agenda. At the same time, indigenous populations in North America, Australia, New Zealand and many other colonised lands continue to suffer. The retention of old colonial power lines, embedded within the system's architecture, has restricted its ability to respond equitably and to transfer voice, vote and power to a majority in need of humanitarian assistance within the Global South. Regardless of the good intentions, inequality can only be addressed by addressing root issues, and in a world in which capital takes priority over human flourishing, this becomes incredibly difficult. Against this backdrop a humanitarian reset has begun as the old system disintegrates.
In the guise of charity, aid has for decades been weaponised and it has become part of US and Western Europe's foreign policy.[3] Following the abrupt suspension of USA’s foreign aid by Executive Order on 20 January 2025, many more countries followed suit and cut their aid budgets. The push for nationalistic political agendas across much of the Global North is based on the false premise that it is the benevolent giver of charity and defender of human rights, whilst simultaneously omitting its continued extraction of resources from the Global South. A study that quantified the benefit from unequal exchange between 1995 and 2015 found that US $ 242 trillion had been extracted from the Global South through cheap labour and monopolies of global supply chains by large multinationals benefiting the Global North.[4] Entrenched within the current political, economic and social dynamics is a global governance system permissive of these realities. What has been referred to as a global humanitarian crisis is now a humanitarian collapse. The suspension of USAID is estimated to be linked to hundreds of thousands of deaths, including that of 200,000 children, in what amounts to a flagrant disregard for human life - all under a marketing campaign to put ‘America first’ once again.[5] The question is, has this not always been the case?
The humanitarian reset was initiated by Tom Fletcher, the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, OCHA on March 10, 2025. This was on the grounds that the humanitarian system is facing a profound crisis of legitimacy, morale, and funding. The idea is to revamp the global humanitarian system to improve efficiency and effectiveness.[6]Building on this basis, the authors attempt to critically examine the meaning of the humanitarian reset, which implies a fundamental shift in the ethics and practice of humanitarianism- particularly now that Western powers have begun to undermine the very global structures they once created. This critique brings to the forefront the importance of a reset that prioritises First Responders perspective – meaning the crisis-affected communities – the most neglected stakeholders in any crisis by international humanitarian agencies. Without the meaningful participation of crisis-affected communities, any derivative of an alternative humanitarian system will fail to quell human suffering. An example of this can be seen in the emergence of security contractors marketed as humanitarian organisations. This is a critical moment for the resurgence of humanitarianism - one that must be driven by those at the forefront of crises to help shape what the reset should be.
There are some default challenges in the global governance architecture. In the original structures, many African, Latin/South American, and West Asian nations were not included, mainly because they were still under the grips of European colonial masters. The same European and North American countries that heavily contributed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 the idea that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights were parallelly discriminating, murdering, plundering, and committing genocides in many of their colonies! Continuous calls for food, peace, and justice for all from the leaders in the Global South through various mechanisms such as the Non-Aligned Movement or South Commission were ignored by the leaders of the Global North. The economic, social, cultural and political rise of emerging powers such as China, India, Brazil, Colombia, South Africa, Nigeria and Türkiye, has redefined geopolitics by creating a more multipolar and interconnected world - challenging the Global North’s refusal to engage with all countries as equal partners. Even then, dominant narratives from the Global North portray these countries as “risks”, or “competitors,” using such framing to delegitimize their rise on the global stage. Regions such as Africa, West Asia, and Latin/South America are yet to sit in the Security Council as permanent members or voice their problems as equal partners in International Financial Institutions.
Various UN organisations and international humanitarian agencies that are based in several European capitals are anxious and concerned about the lack of funding in the humanitarian sector. Against that, we argue that it is a lack of political will. The collapse of Euro-North-American-led humanitarianism is the downfall of a system that served “some” and destroyed others. Julius Kambarage Nyerere, the first president of Tanzania, anti-colonial activist, and political theorist understood this current problem of the global humanitarian system as far back as 1975:
“I am saying it is not right that the vast majority of the world’s population should be forced into the position of beggars, without dignity. In one world, as in one state, when I am rich because you are poor, and I am poor because you are rich, the transfer of wealth from rich to poor is a matter of right; it is an appropriate matter for charity. The objective must be the eradication of poverty, and the establishment of a minimum standard of living for all people. This involves its converse—a ceiling on wealth for individuals and nations, as well as deliberate action to transfer resources from the rich to the poor within and across national boundaries.”[7]
Today, the UN, especially its humanitarian and development system is at a crossroads. It is already proven that we cannot continue with structures that increase divisions, discrimination, exclusion and contribute to suffering. At the top leadership of the United Nations, this has been understood well. In 2023, at the BRICS summit in South Africa, the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres announced the following:
“Today’s global governance structures reflect yesterday’s world. They were largely created in the aftermath of the Second World War when many African countries were still ruled by colonial Powers and were not even at the table. This is particularly true of the Security Council of the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions. For multilateral institutions to remain truly universal, they must reform to reflect today’s power and economic realities, and not the power and economic realities of the post-Second World War. In the absence of such reform, fragmentation is inevitable.”[8]
From the inception of the global humanitarian system, there have been many ups and downs. Taking into account the Cold War period, end of the Cold War, Twin Tower Attacks on September 11, 2001, and various global financial crises have contributed to shaping of this global system. As argued by many from various perspectives, the global humanitarian system is top-down, resource heavy, and struggles to collaborate with crisis-affected populations. Especially over the past two decades, it became visible that the system was collapsing and needed a “reset”.
What is important to remember is that regardless of these challenges in the global governance and humanitarian system, populations that are affected by catastrophes continue to carry on with their livelihood regimes, to live, to celebrate, and to be joyful. This is an achievement beyond everyday life. Many of us have been pointing towards the need for the global humanitarian system to collaborate with crisis affected populations to learn from them.[9] By submitting to collaborate with affected populations as equal partners, the global humanitarian system can create inclusive, mindful and varied ways of dealing with human suffering with compassion and care for all. It can open doors for understanding and developing future global policies that determine humanity’s own development while enhancing the security of our common heritage – the planet Earth.
Claudia Milena Adler is a lecturer on the MSc in International Humanitarian Affairs (MIHA) and Deputy Programme Lead.Her research critically examines learning approaches that empower girls and women from marginalised and rural backgrounds from South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. Currently, Claudia is engaging with ancient wisdom from the Global South to learn solutions to modern challenges including climate change. Her work focuses on raising awareness of the implications on health and wellbeing and non-mainstream pedagogical approaches within the context of disasters, conflict and uneven development.Claudia teaches courses on humanitarianism, community wellbeing, international protection and assistance, communities in humanitarian affairs, and education in emergencies. Claudia has worked with grassroots initiatives since 2016, primarily in Uganda and Colombia.
Janaka Jayawickrama is Professor of Social Anthropology and Director of the Research Centre for Health and Wellbeing at Shanghai University, China. Trained in India, the USA, and UK, Janaka has been collaborating with disaster, conflict, and uneven development affected communities in Asia, Africa, and West Asia (or Middle East) since 1994. He continues to work in Sri Lanka in collaboration with universities and community groups on disaster risk reduction, development, and climate change. Janaka holds many honorary positions with universities in the UK, Sweden, China, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.
[1]Global Peace Index, (2025), Overall GPI Score, Available at: https://www.visionofhumanity.org/maps/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=22116084622#/
[2]UN OHCHR (2025) Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Advance Version: A/HRC/60/CRP.3”. Geneva: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Available at:https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session60/advance-version/a-hrc-60-crp-3.pdf IOM DTM Sudan (2025) Two Years of Conflict in Sudan: Visualizing the World’s Largest Displacement Crisis. Geneva: International Organization for Migration. Available at:https://reliefweb.int/report/sudan/two-years-conflict-sudan-visualizing-worlds-largest-displacement-crisis
[3]Jayawickrama, J. (2018) ‘Humanitarian aid system is a continuation of the colonial project’, Al Jazeera, 24 February. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/2/24/humanitarian-aid-system-is-a-continuation-of-the-colonial-project
[4]Oxfam International. (2025). Takers, not Makers: Davos Executive Summary 2025 [PDF]. Available at: https://oi-files-d8-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2025-01/English%20-%20Davos%20Executive%20Summary%202025.pdf
[5]Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2025). US government fuelling global humanitarian catastrophe — UN experts [Press release]. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/us-government-fuelling-global-humanitarian-catastrophe-un-experts
[6]ICVA, (2025), The Humanitarian Reset Examined: A Strategic Note for NGOs, (p.02), Geneva: ICVA, Available at: https://www.icvanetwork.org/resource/the-iasc-humanitarian-reset-examined-a-strategic-briefing-for-ngos/
[7]Nyerere, J., (1976), The Economic Challenge: Dialogue or Confrontation, International Development Review 18:1, p. 242.
[8]United Nations, (2023), Calling for Reinvigorated Multilateralism, Secretary-General Tells BRICS Summit, in Fracturing World with Overwhelming Crises, No Alternative to Cooperation, Available at: https://press.un.org/en/2023/sgsm21911.doc.htm
[9]Jayawickrama, J., and Rehman, B., (2018), Before Defining What is Local, Let’s Build the Capacities of Humanitarian Agencies, Refugee Hosts, Available at: https://refugeehosts.org/2018/04/10/before-defining-what-is-local-lets-build-the-capacities-of-humanitarian-agencies/