In an era of escalating global tensions, from ongoing conflicts in the Middle East to economic pressures on energy markets, questions about the effectiveness of international institutions are more pertinent than ever. The United Nations (UN), founded in 1945 to prevent future world wars and foster cooperation, has long been a cornerstone of global governance. Yet, its sprawling bureaucracy and perceived biases have drawn sharp criticism. Enter the Board of Peace, a newly established entity spearheaded by the Trump administration, ostensibly focused on Gaza’s reconstruction but viewed by many as a potential challenger to the UN’s dominance. As the Board holds its inaugural meeting today, February 19, 2026, in Washington, we examine whether this leaner alternative could fully supplant the UN, delving into the UN’s track record, its massive expenditures, its actual contributions beyond controversial agendas like renewables and climate alarmism, the Board of Peace’s current membership, and the prospects for a streamlined UN-like body.
🚨President Trump just WALKED OUT to a MASSIVE standing ovation at the Board of Peace meeting!
Room absolutely ERUPTED, everyone on their feet, cheering like crazy as he stepped in. Pure energy, pure respect!pic.twitter.com/FQfreGlGqO
— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) February 19, 2026
The UN’s Track Record: A Mixed Bag of Peace and Politics
The UN’s history is a tapestry of noble intentions interwoven with operational failures. Established post-World War II, it has deployed over 71 peacekeeping missions involving more than two million personnel from 125 countries.
These efforts have helped stabilize regions like the Middle East through resolutions in 1967 and 1973, and improvised peacekeeping roles that built confidence during ceasefires.
The organization has also prevented escalation in Cold War flashpoints, such as the Korean War and Cuban Missile Crisis, contributing to the absence of great power wars since 1945.
Humanitarian achievements stand out as well. The UN’s World Food Programme (WFP) aids over 80 million people annually, while agencies like UNICEF provide vaccines to 45% of the world’s children, saving 2-3 million lives yearly from preventable diseases.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and subsequent covenants on civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights have set global standards, influencing laws worldwide.
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000 and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 have driven progress in poverty reduction and health, though critics argue these are often overstated amid persistent global inequalities.
However, criticisms abound. The UN is often seen as inefficient, with slow decision-making hampered by Security Council vetoes from permanent members (U.S., China, Russia, France, UK).
Failures include inability to prevent conflicts like those in Ukraine, where its role has been limited to humanitarian aid and diplomacy, such as the now-defunct Black Sea Grain Initiative.
Major-power divisions have shrunk multilateral space, rendering the organization reactive rather than proactive.
Moreover, the UN faces accusations of ideological bias, particularly in promoting agendas that some view as overreach.
Billions Spent: A Bureaucratic Black Hole?
Financially, the UN is a behemoth. In 2023, the UN system’s total expenses reached $68.5 billion, up 72% since 2010, with humanitarian assistance accounting for 45% ($30.8 billion) and development aid 30% ($20.6 billion).
The regular budget, funding core operations, hovered around $3.5-3.7 billion annually in recent years, with peacekeeping adding another $5-6 billion.
Cumulatively, since 1945, U.S. taxpayers alone have contributed at least $14 billion to the regular budget by the 1990s, with current U.S. assessments at 22% of the regular budget ($820 million in 2025) and 26% of peacekeeping.
Arrears are chronic: As of 2025, unpaid assessments totaled $2.4 billion, with the U.S. owing $1.5 billion.
Historical highs include $3.8 billion in outstanding assessments in 1995.
Procurement spending hit $24.9 billion in 2023, down from pandemic peaks but still massive.
Critics argue this funding fuels a “bloated bureaucracy” rife with waste, as evidenced by ongoing reform calls and perceptions of outdated structures.
Beyond Renewables and Climate Fear: Real Good or Greenwashing?
The user raises a pointed critique: Has the UN done anything good besides pushing “expensive renewable energy and climate fear mongering”? Indeed, the UN’s climate agenda, through bodies like the IPCC and SDGs (Goal 13: Climate Action), has aggressively promoted transitions to renewables, often at high costs to developing nations reliant on fossil fuels. This includes the Paris Agreement (2015), which critics say burdens energy sectors with unfeasible targets, inflating global energy prices amid supply chain disruptions.Yet, the UN’s non-climate contributions are substantial. Beyond peacekeeping and human rights, it has codified humanitarian law, including the 1948 Genocide Convention and 1951 Refugee Convention, protecting millions fleeing persecution.
Material aid has been a lifeline: In 2022, UN procurement for goods and services totaled $29.6 billion, much for health and humanitarian needs.
The organization has also facilitated decolonization, economic development via UNDP, and disease eradication efforts, like smallpox in 1980 through WHO.
That said, skeptics argue these successes are overshadowed by failures in addressing root causes, such as economic dependencies or conflict prevention, and that climate focus diverts resources from pressing energy security issues. For instance, while promoting renewables, the UN has been accused of ignoring the affordability crises in energy markets, where fossil fuels remain dominant for reliable baseload power.
Board of Peace Membership and Its Potential
The Board of Peace, proposed in September 2025 and formalized at the 56th World Economic Forum in January 2026, is framed as a tool for Gaza’s reconstruction post-conflict, with the UN estimating $70 billion in damages.
However, analysts see it as a broader challenge to the UN, targeting its perceived inefficiencies.
The U.S. has pledged $10 billion, emphasizing it’s “small compared to the cost of war.”
Board members have collectively pledged $7 billion for Gaza relief.
Current members aren’t fully detailed in public reports, but notable refusals include the UK, Canada, France, and Germany, citing concerns over bypassing the UN.
Likely participants include the U.S., Israel (given Gaza focus), and possibly Middle Eastern allies like Saudi Arabia or the UAE, which have interests in regional stability and energy partnerships. The Board’s setup hinges on conditions like Hamas disarmament.
It’s not positioned as a full UN replacement but could evolve into one for specific crises.
A Stripped-Down UN: Better Shot at Success?
Could a leaner UN succeed where the current behemoth falters? Absolutely, argue reformers. A stripped-down version—focusing on core peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, and conflict mediation without the expansive bureaucracy—might enhance efficiency. Eliminating veto paralysis, reducing overhead (e.g., via fewer specialized agencies), and prioritizing pragmatic diplomacy over ideological agendas like aggressive climate policies could restore credibility.The Board of Peace exemplifies this: By sidestepping UN red tape, it aims for targeted, results-oriented action in Gaza.
Historical UN reforms, like the 2023 New Agenda for Peace, call for adaptive strategies, including regional partnerships.
In energy contexts, a slimmed UN might better balance renewables with fossil fuel realities, avoiding “fear mongering” that hampers affordable energy access.Yet, challenges remain: Global buy-in is needed, and major powers’ divisions could doom even a reformed body. The Board’s success in Gaza will be a litmus test—if it delivers reconstruction without UN-style delays, it might inspire broader shifts.In conclusion, while the Board of Peace isn’t yet a full UN replacement, its emergence highlights the latter’s vulnerabilities. The UN has undeniable achievements in peace and aid, but its trillions in spending and agenda-driven focus raise valid doubts. A stripped-down alternative could indeed thrive, fostering real progress in a multipolar world increasingly skeptical of globalist institutions. For energy stakeholders, this debate underscores the need for bodies that prioritize practical solutions over costly ideals.
Sources: tandfonline.com,
Be the first to comment