[COLUMNIST] Time to UN-Seat US on the UN Security Council

IN recent months, the United States has made a habit of exiting international organizations, from the World Health Organization (WHO) to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). These departures, typically justified as pragmatic rejections of bodies that no longer serve American interests, raise a pointed question: Why stop there? Why not withdraw from the most powerful international forum of all—the United Nations Security Council?

For decades, the United Nations (UN) has served as the central platform for international cooperation, with its Security Council (UNSC) intended to preserve peace and security through collective action. Yet recent developments signal a deeper structural crisis: the United States has withdrawn from or defunded several major UN-related bodies and international organizations, even while retaining a privileged position on the UNSC that allows it to block resolutions—particularly regarding Israel’s actions in Gaza.

As the world watches the ongoing tragedy in the occupied Palestinian territories, many wonder whether it is time not just for Israel to be unseated from the UN but, more consequentially, for the U.S. itself to withdraw—or be removed—from its Security Council seat.

The UN was established on the back of the 1945 Yalta Conference, an effort by war-weary nations to forge an international order premised on cooperation and the “sovereign equality” of all states. Instead of one nation dominating global affairs, the UN Charter envisaged a balance of power and mechanisms like the Security Council to prevent future world wars.

Yet, in the decades since the Cold War, the U.S. has progressively expanded its global reach while paying lip service to the UN framework. Its permanent Security Council seat, with the power of veto, turned into a powerful diplomatic tool. Around the world, Washington repeatedly leveraged that veto to block resolutions critical of its own foreign policy or that of close allies—chief among them Israel, especially in the context of repeated war crimes in Gaza. Over and over, the UNSC’s ability to censure or sanction Israel for violations of international law has been paralyzed by a simple U.S. “No.”

Under President Donald Trump’s first term (2017–2021), the U.S. withdrew from the Paris Agreement on climate change, slashed funds to UNRWA (the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), withdrew from the WHO, and exited the UNHRC. Trump 2.0 has doubled down on these isolationist signals, issuing an executive order on February 4, 2025, that officially ended U.S. participation in the UNHRC once more and cut additional funding to UNRWA. Israel soon followed suit.

Such actions have practical ramifications. When Washington halts its financial contributions—often some of the largest among UN member states—international agencies find themselves in sudden crisis. The experience of the World Anti-Doping Agency(WADA) is instructive: the moment it decided running contrary to Washington’s preferences, U.S. funds were frozen, plunging it into disarray. A similar pattern emerged with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which faced significant pressure to tailor its statements and investigations in Syria to U.S. positions. This effectively undermines the independence of these international organizations and contravenes the principle of sovereign equality at the heart of the UN Charter.

If the U.S. has spent the past few years exiting or defunding a range of international organizations—from the WHO to the UNHRC—why should it continue to occupy a seat that grants it such disproportionate leverage over global peace and security?

In practical terms, the U.S. has already signaled, through its many withdrawals, that it no longer sees the UN system as a framework worthy of its compliance or financial support—unless it directly serves U.S. strategic or economic goals.

Moreover, calls for fundamental UN reform are growing. The collective “Global South” has long been marginalized in international decision-making, but this is beginning to change. Countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America are increasingly asserting their voices on the global stage, demanding a seat at the table and a say in the decisions that affect their lives. The U.S. withdrawal from the UNSC could accelerate this shift, creating space for new leaders to emerge and new solutions to be proposed.

As the tragedy in Gaza rages on, with UN experts, human rights groups, and humanitarian agencies denouncing relentless attacks on civilians (even UN staff and facilities), the lens of moral urgency too insists that if the U.S. can so readily exit or defund key arms of the UN system, it should not simultaneously wield a veto that perpetuates suffering on such a massive scale.

Expelling or suspending Israel from UN might have symbolic resonance, but history shows that Israel’s leadership, emboldened by U.S. support, is not easily constrained by membership status alone. A more decisive step would be to dislodge the very power that funds, arms, and defends Israel—namely the U.S. Removing or persuading the U.S. to exit the UNSC would strip away the near-automatic veto obstructing rigorous international scrutiny and accountability and making the council impotent in the face of grave violations in Palestine.

If Washington is already in the process of what some term “self-isolation” in global affairs—exiting treaties, lambasting international oversight bodies, and ignoring long-established norms—then it is better for the U.S. to formalize that disengagement by vacating its UNSC seat.

The steady exodus of the U.S. from global institutions has already shaken the viability of critical international frameworks. Whether one views these actions through the lens of a “business-like, cost-cutting president” or as a calculated step toward dismantling multilateralism, the effect is the same: Washington demonstrates little regard for diplomatic consensus and the principle of sovereign equality.

If Washington no longer considers itself bound by the UN system’s founding principles, perhaps it should forfeit its ability to shape and block the decisions of the world’s highest security organ.

Some might argue that the U.S. withdrawal would leave a power vacuum, but this is a risk worth taking. The current system, in which a handful of nations hold disproportionate power, is unsustainable. It is time to move toward a model of global governance that is truly representative of the world’s diversity.

As the world faces existential threats from climate change to expanded warfare, the impetus for meaningful structural reforms is more urgent than ever.

---

Dr Rais Hussin is the Founder of EMIR Research, a think tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research.

** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.

Read the latest news here