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.
What could convince the Republican politicians would be if the UN could state that all its agencies worked in a coordinated fashion in country X in sub-Saharan Africa, and managed through good and transparent leadership, to get the vast majority of all NGOs and other aid organisations in the country to work for a common agenda supporting the government to achieve its development goals. The work started with the independence of country X in 1960; at that time, the U5 mortality was above 100, the percentage of children finishing primary school was well below 50, less than a quarter of the population had access to primary health care, and the GDP per capita was only 50 per cent of the global average. Today, 65 years after this work started, country X can proudly announce that it has, with the help of international assistance, led and coordinated by the UN, managed to become a middle-income country that provides healthcare and education to all its population.
ReplyDeleteRegrettable, there is no such country in sub-Saharan Africa
Thank you Thomas for this rejoinder. I am fully with you in your second response. It is however enigmatic that despite the obvious advantages of inter-agency coordination on the ground for program implementation, there is a lot of resistance to it from the individual organizations themselves. UN agencies at the field level regrettably tend to function as stand-alone silos, despite a designated coordinating role assigned. It has much more to do than individual egocentricity within the organizations. It has more to do with who funds the organization in question and who holds the purse strings to call the tune. That's where politics of development aid comes into play. The only time I have witnessed inter-agency coordination work to perfection is under complex post-conflict peace-building initiatives and humanitarian assistance. As for sub-Saharan Africa, it remains a riddle as to why much of the region has suffered through poor leadership in the post-colonial era despite the rich potential it holds to make it well in the world. It's an amazing region. My six years there, coast to coast, from Uganda to Gabon, was an enchanting experience, which I will cherish for life. As for the US and the Republican antipathy towards the UN, I may be wrong but it emanates from the fear of losing control. It is wrong to see the UN as an extension of US hegemony. Under a reformed system, much of it should be remedied, beginning with a restructured Security Council. Realities have changed from what they were 80 years ago. Before I end, I must confess that I remain humbled by the kind words you have spoken about my contribution to the debate. We do hope to have your sustained inputs to the Blog from now on.
DeleteTo add to my rejoinder, I recall David Haxton at my induction in UNICEF India, where I was recruited, telling us in his inimitable American style: "We have hired you for your brains. And we give you a pocket-full of dollars to spend. Go out and make use of both to make a difference where it counts." The words still resonate. That's the US I was introduced to. There are millions more like Dave Haxton still in the US who share his thoughts. What we see in the world today is a passing phase. Uncle Sam will resurrect itself to lead. The Republicans today do not strike a note of alarm to me. I remain hopeful of a new world unfolding in the horizon. Look to the East. You will see its hues.
DeleteReflecting on this is sad. A respected and competent UN could have played the role suggested. Had that been so, many sub-Saharan countries might have been in the middle-income bracket today.
DeleteThat is a fairytale. The real world is about standing, prominence and importance, which was achieved by undermining other actors and competing for funding.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat is cynical, but there may be a kernel of truth there. We certainly competed for funding with the other aid outfits, and clashes with, for example, SCF were common. I did get along well with the head SCF in Khartoum, perhaps because we had something in common - we both liked single malt. He used to tell me after the second glass, only half in jest, that he feared getting into trouble with his HQ for not having generated a major clash with UNICEF.
DeleteYou seem to make a case for the futility of aid. Let me give you a hand. We were costing as aid workers for the UN $300,000 a year. I'm sure that no one on this blog could claim that he or she contributed anywhere close to that wherever they worked. The money we were paid was intended for the country where we worked; in other words, we took out more money from those countries than we put in. It is a most basic business accounting practice that if someone is hired for $300,000, he or she must produce at least 25 to 30 per cent more than that to be worth hiring. We never did. Honestly, I do not think anyone produced for even half that. But then of course, we thought we could not go bankrupt, until now that is.
ReplyDeleteIs there an equivalence between the Danish author H. C. Andersen’s fairy tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes and the UN’s quandary? Is Trump the little boy who cries out that the emperor is naked?
ReplyDeleteI have never brushed aside Trump or the role he is playing in the big Game Plan that is unfolding, even though he does provide good entertainment from time to time with his histrionics. Trump is not the little boy in the game. He is bulky and huge enough as POTUS to make a dent where he wills. Yes his will is unpredictable. There's much for reflection when he yells out that the emperor is naked. As for Thomas' rejoinder I will leave it to others to comment since the figures he has quoted as earnings do not match the pay packet I received even on my international assignment. Perhaps I am the "little boy" you mention.
DeleteGautam, the cost of a UN aid worker was more than the money you had paid into your bank account every month on your international assignment. There were so-called staff assessments, pension contributions, health insurance fees, and, don’t forget, the cost of educating our pampered kids, often in fancy private schools, and probably a few more costs that I have forgotten. Yes, the cost was $300,000, and it must be more today.
ReplyDeleteYes streamlining costs is essential. Much of the fringe benefits should be trimmed down to enhance efficiency and save the organisation from collapse. We should accept it gracefully. There is no doubt that we were well looked after and there’s much for reflection. Thank you Thomas for being the voice of conscience.
DeleteThe UN can't be reformed from within. It has too many staff who could not earn the equivalent if they were made to leave the organisation. They will resist any change. Reform can only be enforced from outside and probably only by the US. The EU, while contributing more than the US, is most likely too fragmented to take its place. China, another power player, is unlikely to object to changes to the various UN agencies, which they were never allowed to play a role in, despite their proven record of knowing how to develop fast. That leaves the organisation’s fate largely in the hands of Trump’s Republican Party, which will be in power for at least another three years. The staff of the various agencies may want to fasten their seat belts; it could be a rough ride.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if I agree completely with you. The strongest critiques about the system came from within. And that’s healthy. That’s the way to go about reforms. And it’s not true that most will not find jobs outside the system if they left. I left UNICEF at the age of 46 out of a conscious choice after two bereavements in close succession in my family while I was serving in Baghdad under a complex emergency away from my home. I took a year’s sabbatical without pay but never returned. I started my legal practice in the UK followed by two successive consultancies first under a task order of the US State Department and the second USAID, in Iraq and Afghanistan respectively. My full retirement now in Armenia couldn’t be happier. I have found my mini United Nations here at the United World College with students from over ninety countries. My twelve years with UNICEF helped to apply my skills I had acquired and in turn I added much more to it. My legal career, although a struggle to begin with, in turn helped me in consultancies with the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. Recalling Dave Haxton again, he used to caution us that UNICEF was not a job for life. Staff should have the capacity to move out and apply the skills they acquire. Those who can’t, do not deserve to continue. Sorry Thomas for this long response. In brief, the reforms will come from within. There’s no other way of going about it.
DeleteGautam, you say it is not true that the UN staff would not find work if they leave the UN. As proof of that, you use the sample of one. By the way, I said most would not find work with equal pay, that is different, and it is true.
DeleteYou also say most of the criticism comes from within the UN. If that is so, change would have already happened. Yes, probably most UN staff would like to see change as long as it did not affect them in any negative way. As you know, in a team, it is always the others who do not pull their weight.
There are entrenched structural issues within the system that has resisted change from within so far. These have to be identified and addressed for any meaningful reform to be effective. The process has started. Let me repeat, no one knows the system better than those within it.
DeleteSome wish to severely prune the UN agencies, if not close them down; Trump's Republican Party is in that category. Then you have those who want gentle reforms; the Norwegian Social Democratic Party is leading that group. Norway is unlikely to prevail, particularly with Europe falling behind economically, with a war on the doorstep of the EU, draining aid resources. It does not matter how well the staff of the UN know their agencies. A Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF said recently, in relation to the budget cuts, that she had managed to save many staff positions. It might have been more appropriate to say that UNICEF had managed to ensure that there would still be money for the most vulnerable children in Africa.
ReplyDeleteYes, judicious choice of words counts in communication!
DeleteI should have mentioned earlier that the reputable British newspaper The Economist had a similar article to the one above by the FT, but gloomier, in its September 20th, 2025 issue. It was titled "The UN's grim future". But on the other hand, it may not matter; there appears to be little interest among the readers of this blog.
DeleteFuad, if you think this discussion is interesting, don't stay on the sidelines. Let us all benefit from your extensive experience.
ReplyDeleteThe salary survey system of the UN may reveal, in some small way, how the organisation was managed. I do not know how it is done today, but it used to be, shall we say, somewhat lacking in rationale. The salary survey team often increased salaries in countries which had erratic economies and high inflation by hundreds of percentage points in one go. UNICEF might have hired the very best NOB available for a salary of 1,000 dollars a month. Two months later, the salary survey team tripled the salary for an NOB, but UNICEF was stuck with its one thousand dollar one, who likely went on to an international position a few years later. One does not need to be a management excellence expert to understand that this system was less than optimal. But it served those who were already employed and prevailed for the 30 years I worked for UNICEF.
ReplyDeleteThe recruitment of international staff was often also flawed. It was common to hire hangers-on, starting with a couple of SSAs, leading quickly to an L3, and you were in on a very lucrative package for life. Needless to say, this way of hiring did not ensure the best talent the pay package could attract. That was a problem for an organisation that, during my time, spent nearly half its money on staff. It was also taken note of by the governments in the countries where we worked, and it did not enhance our standing.
DeleteThese malpractices in recruitment have, I am sure, been corrected, and if DEI hiring is the path to organisational excellence, UNICEF must be near perfection by now.