Donald Trump made his own controversial case against the United Nations at the UN today, lecturing world leaders that “the UN is supposed to stop invasions, not create them and not finance them.” But he was beaten to this anti-UN manifesto by the New York City based journalist Seth Barron, who wrote “The End of the UN ” cover story for Tablet magazine this month. While Barron’s historically grounded critique is more academically rigorous than Trump’s, it essentially makes the same realpolitik argument: that there’s an irreconcilable contradiction between American interests and multilateral governance. Barron blithely suggests it’s time for the United States to withdraw from the UN entirely. But as I pressed him, without success, in our conversation, what then would replace international institutions when it comes to resolving seemingly intractable conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and beyond?
1. The UN Is Already Dead in Practice
Barron argues the UN has lost all meaningful influence and relevance. He compares it to the Roman Senate, which continued meeting for 200 years after Rome’s collapse in 476 AD, discussing wars and public works they had no power to conduct. The UN, he suggests, has become a similar zombie institution.
2. Peacekeeping Missions Have Been Catastrophic Failures
From Somalia (1993) and Rwanda (1994) to Bosnia (1995) and Haiti, Barron cites repeated examples where UN peacekeepers either failed to prevent massacres or, in Haiti’s case, became predators themselves—with Sri Lankan peacekeepers systematically raping Haitian children while building brothels.
3. International Law Is a Fiction Used by the Powerful
Barron argues that without enforcement mechanisms, international law becomes merely “a cudgel by powerful countries to throw their weight around.” He notes that the International Criminal Court typically prosecutes African leaders from weak nations while ignoring crimes by major powers.
4. Israel Has Become the UN’s Scapegoat
Since 2015, the UN has passed 173 resolutions condemning Israel compared to just 27 against Russia and 12 against Syria. Barron sees this as evidence of institutional anti-Semitism and argues that post-colonial nations use Israel as a “whipping boy” to deflect from their own human rights violations.
5. No Viable Alternative to National Sovereignty
When pressed on what would replace the UN, Barron offered no clear answer beyond bilateral agreements and regional arrangements. He dismissed the idea that global challenges like climate change require international cooperation, arguing that agreements like the Paris Accords are toothless without enforcement mechanisms. Barron’s critique has some merit but offers no constructive vision for addressing genuinely global problems in an interconnected world.
