UN at 80: Strain, Fragmentation, and the Push for Reform
Financial Times
Summary
As the United Nations approaches its 80th anniversary, the institution faces deep questions about its relevance and survival. The article argues that without sweeping reforms, the UN risks sliding into irrelevance, with its founding ideals undermined by great power rivalry, financial stress, and bureaucratic inefficiency.
The Secretariat’s UN80 reform initiative aims to streamline operations, consolidate agencies, and refocus on core mandates, but the political will of member states — particularly the U.S. — will be decisive. Leadership also remains under scrutiny, with António Guterres constrained by structural limits and calls for a more activist Secretary-General growing louder. The article warns that while the UN has weathered crises before, today’s fractured geopolitical landscape makes this test existential, with some observers drawing comparisons to the League of Nations.
Quotes
-
“The Security Council — the heart of the UN’s peace and security mandate — is gridlocked, largely because of the veto powers held by the permanent members.”
-
“With over 40,000 mandates and multiple overlapping agencies and bodies, the UN is described as an ‘archipelago’ of entities — too complex, slow, and disconnected from fast-moving crises.”
-
“Contributions from key donors, notably the U.S. and China, are in arrears. The UN itself is planning steep cuts: 15–20% reductions in staff and budget are on the table for 2026.”
-
“The article is sobering in tone: while reform is not deemed impossible, the risks of failure are portrayed as existential. The UN could fade into irrelevance — akin to the trajectory of the League of Nations.”
The UN is indispensable, but without change, it will wither, and then the world would have to create a new institution from scratch. The Security Council, in particular, must reflect today’s realities, not the power balance of 80 years ago.
ReplyDeleteNot everything under the UN umbrella deserves saving. Many of its agencies are bloated, ineffective, and could be dismantled with little loss. The UN’s track record on development is dismal. After decades of programs and many billions spent, Africa is relatively poorer than it was when the UN was founded. Too often, its agencies serve themselves more than the people they are supposed to help.
There are better, simpler ways to make a difference. Direct cash transfers to the poorest would have a greater impact. Yes, some of the money would go to drinks or weddings, but most would be spent wisely, especially if women were the main recipients. Parents in Africa know better than overpaid aid workers what their children need: food, health, and education.
Climate change mitigation is urgent, and interventions there would be more effective than pouring money into the same tired development ruts. Even in emergencies, local armed forces are often better placed to respond — they already have the logistics, manpower, and infrastructure.
I would be inclined to argue if the UN is to be judged for its failings, it has only in a limited way been able to fulfill its primary function of restoring peace and stability in a world torn asunder by war and conflict. If it has to be judged by its success, I would place it in its development efforts, reaching out to the unreached in some of the most challenging environments where few dare to tread.
DeleteMuch has been achieved through persistent advocacy with recalcitrant regimes, reluctant to be moved where it comes to shift of power to those they govern. It is easy to walk away, and blame it on corruption, as Thomas seems to suggest. It is a harder task to persist where one must and that counts.
UNICEF is unique in its capacity to wear the boots on the ground while at the same time walk the corridors of power to talk the walk with policy framers in state capitals. This is a role worthy of emulation across all developmental initiatives across the UN system. I would judge success through these softer skills in diplomacy and advocacy efforts.
I am not a neorealist sold to the idea of a world in anarchy where jealously guarding state sovereignty is considered to be of paramount importance for political leadership. I believe in interdependency in a multipolar world, where global institutions set the rules for good governance through consensus. I believe in the rule of law. I do not believe that the world should be allowed to plunge into anarchy. And that is the challenge before the UN today.
The survival of the UN hinges, to a large extent, on convincing the US government that the organisation is worth keeping and that there is measurable progress in delivering peace, development, and emergency relief.
DeleteGautam’s beautifully written, balanced and nuanced defence of the UN will make the eyes of the Republican politicians, who hold the fate of the UN in their hands, go blank. They will not be impressed by: “reaching out to the unreached”, “much has been achieved through persistent advocacy”, or “judging success through soft skills”. It just won't cut it.
Many US politicians see the above quotations as a reason to cut back funding. They would argue that nothing tangible is being achieved.