International Institutions: What Is—And Is Not—Working  

When the Second World War ended eighty years ago, the United States established an order supported by several multilateral organizations. That scaffolding was not only to prevent another world calamity but also to forge a system that would perpetuate its preponderance. That system continued unevenly until the end of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union collapsed. 

Afterwards, the system survived, albeit not in the manner that the United States had envisioned. As membership increased in the United Nations and its associated institutions such as the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the World Trade Organization, the influence of the United States began to wane. In fact, the cracks in the system had started even before the Cold War ended, as the United States left organizations such as UNESCO under President Ronald Reagan because they were seen as acting against the administration’s policies.  

A shared system of global governance is only possible if members of an organization take collective ownership, abide by its rules, and implement its decisions. Yet, as another UN General Assembly (UNGA) session begins in September, we witness a weakened institution. The UN system has been sidelined in today’s geopolitical landscape, and decades of efforts to overhaul the UN Security Council have yielded no results. It is thus necessary to make a distinction between what has worked so far and what has not. Prior to the League of Nations, organizations such as the International Telegraph Union, the Universal Postal Union, and others that dealt with maritime, agriculture, science, health, or labor issues were established. Most of the organizations have been incorporated into the UN system and are still operational. Those institutions that have survived did so due to shared interests on matters that cannot be handled alone. 

Today, certain matters such as artificial intelligence require collaborative efforts, even as an increasing number of countries, including the big powers, disregard rules or decisions that they disagree with. Moreover, the UN system has not managed politically sensitive questions that have bedeviled regions for decades because votes in the Security Council can be blocked by one member’s veto. We cannot expect much change as long as we live in the current era where might is the chosen method for policymaking. 

Nevertheless, the UN secretary-general and those willing to support him should accentuate common interests and challenges on difficult matters that increasingly confront countries. Coordinated action is the key to rebuilding and overcoming the distrust currently permeating international relations. 

The UN at Eighty: Multilateralism in Crisis  

As world leaders meet at the UN General Assembly in New York this September, the United Nations marks its eightieth anniversary amid a deepening crisis of multilateralism. 

Founded to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” the United Nations now finds itself sidelined as conflicts rage in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and tensions between major powers escalate. Legal scholars warn of a “catastrophic collapse of norms against the use of force.” Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump’s erratic tariff policies have fractured decades of broad consensus on rules-based trade. Foreign aid budgets are shrinking, military spending is rising, and global momentum to act on climate change and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has slowed. 

The United Nations has played a limited role in efforts to end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, hamstrung by entrenched divisions among the five permanent members (P5) of the UN Security Council. Yet those conflicts will dominate attention at UNGA. European countries will take the lead in rallying support for Ukraine against Russia’s aggression, even as Trump pursues a peace deal outside the UN framework. 

On Gaza, mounting international alarm over the dire humanitarian situation is fueling a renewed push for Palestinian statehood. Western countries including Australia, Canada, France, and the United Kingdom plan to add their weight to that push in September, alongside ongoing demands for a ceasefire, the release of Israeli hostages, and full access for aid. 

Amid those geopolitical rifts, the United Nations is under severe financial strain. The United States, its largest donor―contributing some 22 percent of the regular budget―is expected to announce further funding cuts following a review of international organisations ordered by Trump. 

In anticipation, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has launched a drastic cost-cutting drive that aims to reduce the UN budget and workforce by up to 20 percent. While that could force some long-overdue efficiencies, austerity also threatens critical programs that support the world’s most vulnerable populations, often in neglected corners of the world. 

The United Nations undoubtedly needs reform. But its perceived ineffectiveness stems largely from member states’ unwillingness to compromise. If countries turn away from the ideals that once brought them together to create the United Nations, no amount of reform will be enough to save it. 

And it is those with the smallest voices—malnourished children awaiting food and medicine, or civilians protected by peacekeeping missions—that will bear the cost of a diminished United Nations. 

Deep Divisions Chart an Uncertain Path 

Now is a critical time to reflect on the challenges and limitations of the United Nations. The system that was born with high hopes eighty years ago amid the ruins of World War II is showing more than a few cracks. The greatest responsibility for this deterioration does not lie with the organization itself, but rather with its member states—especially the permanent members of the Security Council.  

The United Nations needs to contend with fierce competition and deep divisions between its member states at the international level, along with a decreased interest in multilateralism even as the world becomes increasingly interdependent. The latter is due, in part, to the detachment of the United States from the activities and structures of the United Nations. 

In this context of waning support, certain sectors are particularly affected. In 2024, public development aid to developing countries by the four largest donors within the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States), decreased by 9 percent. This year, experts expect a further reduction of 9 percent to 17 percent. An international effort is therefore urgently needed to mitigate the effects of budget cuts on the world’s most needy and vulnerable populations.  

The situation is even more dramatic for global health promotion funds, which could see a 60 percent decline this year compared to 2022. The negative impact on development, global health, and humanitarian aid is compounded by the radical cuts imposed by Washington on the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Serious concerns are also raised by the growing mistrust in nonproliferation agreements, irresponsibly fueled by some, which should instead be vigorously pursued in the global interest.    

Next year, a new UN secretary-general will be elected. He or she will have a difficult task ahead. The chosen candidate—which could be one of several high-profile women with extensive experience—needs to above all possess strong leadership skills and a proven track record of bridging divides. The world needs the United Nations to continue its role as a forum for mediation and consensus-building to promote solutions of common interest and resolve tensions in the name of peace and development. The original mandate of the United Nations is more relevant than ever. The new secretary-general can contribute to revitalizing the organization and countering the terrible pitfalls of nationalism and its perverse effects. 

A Club in Crisis: The United Nations’ Members Are Failing It 
 

The United Nations is stumbling into its eighth decade with mounting dysfunction. The second Trump administration’s renewed disdain for multilateralism—evidenced by its withdrawal from integral bodies such as the World Health Organization and UN Human Rights Council, and by its steep cuts to humanitarian aid—has deepened a crisis that was already structural. But the rot did not begin with Trump. Washington’s record of unpaid dues to the United Nations under the Reagan and Clinton administrations, and the divisions over the Iraq invasion under the George W. Bush administration, show a long ambivalence toward the very system the United States helped build. 

The regular UN budget hovers around $3.6 billion, yet a $400 million shortfall forced emergency cuts this year. By the spring of 2025, the United States owed roughly $1.5 billion, China nearly $600 million, and dozens of others also lagged behind (including, it pains me to say, COMEXI’s own country of Mexico). The problem is not bureaucratic inefficiency in New York; it is members that refuse to meet their obligations. 

At the heart of the malaise lies the frozen debate over UN Security Council reform. The G4 (Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan) demand permanent seats to reflect today’s power realities. The Uniting for Consensus group, led by Italy and including Canada, Egypt, Mexico, Pakistan, South Korea, Turkey, and others, rejects that request as an entrenchment of privilege and favors expanding only elected seats. The L.69 Coalition of Developing Countries insists on expansion in both categories, arguing that equity demands it. Those positions reflect competing regional calculations as much as competing visions of legitimacy. Every plan crosses a permanent member’s red line. The result is paralysis, vetoes, and eroding credibility. 

That dysfunction radiates outward. The World Trade Organization’s dispute mechanism has been crippled since Washington blocked appointments to its Appellate Body, leaving global trade rules unenforceable. China compounds the problem with state-capitalist practices, such as heavy subsidies to state-owned firms and opaque industrial policies, that bend or break the system’s rules. In global health, long a bright spot, U.S. funding cuts helped drive a 21 percent fall in development assistance in 2025, undermining programs like the Global Fund and GAVI that had been cornerstones of progress against malaria, HIV, and childhood diseases. 

Reversing course will require three moves. First, the United States needs to reengage with the multilateral machinery it designed and that still advances its interests. Second, China should pair its rising financial weight with genuine respect for a rules-based order, rather than treating rules as optional when inconvenient. Third, major Global South states need to match rhetoric with resources, providing sustained contributions and practical reform proposals instead of symbolic posturing. 

The 2026 selection of a new secretary-general offers an opportunity to reset the tone, if not the structure, of the United Nations. Tradition points to Latin America, and pressure is strong to elect the United Nations’ first female leader. Frequently mentioned candidates such as Alicia Bárcena, Michelle Bachelet, and Rebeca Grynspan would bring deep institutional experience. But the real test is not symbolism. The next secretary-general needs to win the acquiescence of all five veto-holders, navigate deep divisions between blocs, and articulate a pragmatic vision for slow but steady reform. Without that, the United Nations risks sliding toward irrelevance precisely in the areas that it was created to govern. 

The UN’s Crisis of Trust  
 

The UN system today faces a convergence of structural, political, and normative crises. At the heart of the problem lies a profound erosion of trust in its impartiality, which is particularly evident in the context of armed conflicts. 

Conflict resolution efforts have been paralyzed by deadlock. In Syria, the veto politics of the UN Security Council blocked action amid mass atrocities. Peacekeeping operations have struggled to fulfill their mandate. In Lebanon, the UN Interim Force failed to ensure that Hezbollah was disarmed and pushed beyond the Litani River, enabling its enhancement. The Human Rights Council’s standing has been compromised by persistent politicization, bias, and selective targeting—most notably of Israel. At the same time, the council has remained silent on the poor human rights records of China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia, and has previously placed Iran in positions of influence. The humanitarian system, too, has been weakened by political entanglement, poor safeguards, and growing exploitation in certain regions by armed groups such as Hamas.  

The Israel-Hamas war has starkly exposed the collapse of trust in UN neutrality. From the outset, key UN bodies and senior officials adopted one-sided narratives “contextualizing” Hamas’s atrocities on October 7, 2023, and downplayed its ongoing brutality, including against its own people. The discourse around Gaza demonstrates, with painful clarity, how UN bias and misreporting entrenched a false account of the conflict. Instead of providing balance and moral clarity, the United Nations amplified distorted narratives and drew a false equivalence between a democracy defending its citizens and a terrorist organization that thrives on civilian suffering and exploits aid for its own ends, or worse, placed blame on Israel alone, effectively legitimizing Hamas. 

That positioning is not merely a rhetorical lapse, but a profound moral and institutional failure. When bias seeps into resolutions, reports, and public statements, the United Nations ceases to be a neutral forum and becomes a political actor.  

To meet those challenges, the next secretary-general cannot afford to be another cautious bureaucrat. What the United Nations needs now is leadership with the courage to call terrorism, aggression, and mass violations of international law by their names, without euphemism, false equivalence, or appeasement. Further, leadership needs to confront entrenched politicization and bias within the UN system, demand accountability from its agencies, resist pressure from blocs or member states that erode its credibility, and apply consistent principles to all member states.  

The new leadership should focus on rebuilding trust with alienated members through genuine dialogue and fair treatment. Credibility cannot be restored through rhetoric but through reform. That includes transparent vetting for the Human Rights Council, independent reviews to ensure neutrality, and a willingness to confront member states that weaponize the UN system for politics.  

At a moment when wars are multiplying and alliances are fracturing, the United Nations risks becoming irrelevant, or worse, a tool for extremists. If the institution is to survive, it needs to adapt now, or collapse under the weight of its own failures.  
 

The United Nations Under Pressure: “Trust Is Low and Needs Are High” 

The UN80 website correctly claims that the United Nations is needed more than ever but is increasingly unable to deliver. The UN Security Council rarely lives up to its role as guardian of peace and international security. It has been far from perfect in the last decades, yet by now rifts, particularly among permanent members, have deepened so far that consensus is often no longer achieved, even on very limited drafts. At the same time, the number of violent conflicts around the world has significantly increased and total fatalities have risen. With military responses to political problems on the rise, civilians are affected to an extent unseen in decades. While the UN system and some member states attempt to adapt peace operations to changing conditions, ongoing missions remain under pressure and are being scaled down. 

Clearly, the multilateral system is being openly challenged, which is also apparent in the field of sustainable development. Much of the United Nations’ work is centred around the 2030 Agenda and the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals that member states agreed to in 2015. Both have contributed to more focused programming and improved policy coherence across the UN system. However, many governments have never prioritised the SDGs in their national decision-making processes. The United States now disregards that approach as globalist, and the withdrawal of USAID funds has put additional strain on an already stretched system. 

At this year’s UN General Assembly, the secretariat is eager to convey a positive message around the UN80 initiative. It is sensible to turn the crisis into an opportunity to make the United Nations more effective and efficient. But there are also risks. Focusing on reforms under strong budgetary pressure could turn attention away from dealing with imminent issues, like the follow-up to the Pact for the Future or the ongoing review of peace operations.  

Ultimately, member states need to make tough decisions and decide on their priorities regarding mandates. Furthermore, UN80 is a process designed to reform existing institutions, but, as the Pact for the Future points out, the United Nations also needs to find ways to address new challenges such as artificial intelligence. 

Former German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock will preside over the eightieth general debate in September, and the selection of the next UN secretary-general will be under her helm. As no major changes to the selection process are likely, the P5 will continue to dominate it.  

Whoever is sworn into office will face tremendous challenges. Major member states are deprioritizing multilateral formats, instead preferring alternative forums or bilateral negotiations. Reliable funding has always been an issue, but now the United Nations is losing core funding from the United States. Simply cutting back its bureaucracy to supposed core functions of the past, however, cannot be the way forward. 

To deal with the challenges of tomorrow, rather than yesterday, member states should build on the priorities set out in the Pact for the Future. The next secretary-general needs to work with governments on those actions while implementing UN80 priorities. That will be a difficult balancing act, but necessary to ensure the United Nations remains vital in a moment of transactional power politics where many countries have much to lose.  

The United Nations: Now Is the Time for Robust Reform  

The United Nations turns eighty this year at a time of profound global challenges. Since its creation, it has been fundamental in conflict prevention, sustainable development, and the promotion of human rights. However, it still faces many outstanding issues, and structural reforms are necessary to adapt the organization to a constantly changing world.  

To this end, in March 2025 UN Secretary-General António Guterres launched the UN80 initiative to transform the way the United Nations operates. The initiative’s intent is to identify inefficiencies, review how mandates are implemented, examine possible structural changes, and realign programs within the UN system. It is necessary to continue making efforts to carry out structural reforms that will allow us to put aside the crisis facing the multilateral system. 

Regarding international peace and security, the United Nations faces difficulties in ending protracted conflicts due to disagreements among the major powers and the crisis of legitimacy of the Security Council, which requires urgent reform. That reform is needed to both limit veto power and increase transparency into the Security Council’s working methods. Similarly, implementation of the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals continue to face challenges due to a lack of investment in development policies that focus on health, education, basic sanitation, and the inclusion of all vulnerable groups.  

Those efforts will be insufficient if more robust financing mechanisms for the UN system and the 2030 Agenda are not established. To achieve that, reform of the international financial system is necessary to make credit more accessible to developing countries. Successful reform will require not only the political will of member states but also greater participation from civil society, the private sector, and local governments. It is also necessary to strengthen coherence among UN agencies to avoid duplication of efforts between agencies and programs.  

In addition to its regular agenda this fall, the UN General Assembly will have the important task of electing the next secretary-general. Ideally, the candidate should have held senior diplomatic or political positions, or positions in international organizations. Practical knowledge of the international context is essential, as is the ability to mediate conflicts and build consensus in polarized environments.  

A candidate from South America would be prudent, as the top position has only been held once by someone from the region. Moreover, the organization needs to elect the best candidate who can efficiently and courageously lead the United Nations as it faces competing and foundational crises.   

A Direct EU Seat for Renewed United Nations  

Sixty-seven years into its creation, it is high time for the European Union to have a direct seat in the United Nations, and for member states to give up theirs. That would be the perfect present for the eightieth anniversary of the United Nations, reinvigorating its role on the global scene. It would indicate that the EU wants to live up to its ambitions, carry out its values, and advance internally, and it would also make it easier for the rest of the world to better understand Europe and the EU. 

Today, the EU has enhanced observer status in the United Nations. The bloc is the only nonstate entity with the right to speak in the General Assembly, submit proposals, and participate in debates—but it cannot vote. The EU often speaks “with one voice,” and the member states vote together, but not always. The EU and its member states provide about 30 to 35 percent of the UN budget and about half of global development aid channeled through the UN system. One of the EU’s members, France, has a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. 

Joining the United Nations as a single member would force the EU to have a single foreign and security policy, something it has strived for since the Berlin Wall came down. It would allow the EU to put its money where its mouth is on foreign policy, and overcome all the inconsistencies, confusion, and negative spillover from the current lack of a cohesive EU foreign policy. It would create synergies with the United Nations for the allocation and management of development aid and hence leverage its financial power. 

The EU joining the United Nations in place of its member states would be a great act of belief in the institution at a time when its usefulness is being questioned. It would facilitate a constructive reimagining of the organization, rather than pursuing the almost impossible task of a full redrawing of international governance institutions. Given its size, the EU could also assume the position of France in the Security Council. 

At a time of waning multilateralism, it is up to the EU, the institution of successful international cooperation, to take the lead in global governance and to put its house in order to get the world’s house in order. 

Standing at a Crossroads: The United Nations in a Fragmented International Order  
 

In light of multiplying traditional and nontraditional threats to international security, intergovernmental institutions face a foundational challenge. As the United Nations marks its eightieth anniversary, its inability to reform the postwar structural modalities, especially the UN Security Council, has led to a deadlock in decision-making. In the current geopolitical context, the UN system is grappling with several difficulties. 

Firstly, from an organizational perspective, recent funding cuts have been apocalyptic for the United Nations—largely due to the Trump administration’s drastic cuts in its contribution. In the annual UN budget of $3.7 billion, only $1.8 billion had been paid by member states by May, adding to previous unpaid assessments. UN agencies are struggling to run operations, and several programs supporting refugees, gender-based violence mitigation, peacekeeping operations, health, and food have been forced to downsize in states such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mozambique, Sudan, and Ukraine.  

Secondly, the rules-based international order is reeling under the influence of great power competition, aggravated by the U.S. withdrawal from crucial global governance frameworks including the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization. Political rivalries have led to a veto stalemate in the UN Security Council, which is divided on issues including disarmament and conflict resolution in Gaza, Sudan, Syria, and Ukraine.  

Thirdly, the consequences of exacerbating conflict have trickled down and led to an exponential rise in food insecurity, refugee crises, economic disparity, and public health concerns in some of the world’s most volatile regions. The United Nations faces an unprecedented challenge of navigating the reduction in international aid while safeguarding the interests of the least-developed countries. 

However, a fragmented international order provides a narrow opportunity to push for inclusive reforms focused on greater representation for the Global South. Given the absence of a replacement for the United Nations, the organization has the scope to transform and reflect contemporary political and economic realities. Emerging issues, such as artificial intelligence, require normative governance frameworks, and UNGA provides that platform, especially to smaller states.  

The next UN secretary-general should echo a similar sentiment, and possess the ability to convince member states of the merits of international cooperation. For building consensus amidst a polarizing state of affairs, the next secretary-general should be amiable and experienced in diplomacy, as the candidate will need to secure affirmative votes from the P5.  

A former head of state or a seasoned diplomat from the Global South with established relationships with world leaders would be a good fit. Moreover, a female candidate should be considered, as a woman has never held the top UN leadership position. The upcoming UNGA session will be crucial as it sets out to revisit and revive the global discourse on multilateralism, peace, and development.  
 

The Future of Multilateralism Needs a Bold Leader  

As the United Nations nears its eightieth anniversary, it faces a convergence of crises that threaten its effectiveness and relevance. Big power rivalries have paralyzed the Security Council, turning it into a stage for vetoes and posturing rather than collective security. 

Meanwhile, the United Nations’ outdated structure fails to reflect the growing influence of emerging economies, and inefficiency hampers its ability to tackle today’s challenges, such as climate change and the risks posed by artificial intelligence. The organization faces a $2.4 billion funding gap in 2025 alone. That financial instability further undermines its operations while the Sustainable Development Goals remain off track, with over a third stagnating or regressing. 

To overcome those challenges, the next UN secretary-general should embody exceptional qualities that go beyond traditional leadership. First and foremost, they should be a skilled diplomat with the ability to mediate between big powers and de-escalate tensions. The world needs a leader who can act as a brake on fragmentation, fostering dialogue and cooperation even in an era of heightened geopolitical rivalry. 

Equally important is a deep commitment to serving humanity. The next leader of the United Nations should amplify the voices of marginalized countries and communities, ensuring that the institution remains a platform for inclusion and equity. That requires moral courage and a global perspective that transcends individual national interests. 

Creativity and vision are also essential. The next secretary-general should chart a bold path for reform, particularly in aligning the United Nations with the goals set forth in the Pact for the Future. That involves rethinking how the institution operates and ensuring that its knowledge products are practical and actionable for member states, particularly in the Global South. 

Finally, managerial excellence is paramount. The secretary-general should streamline UN bureaucracy, reduce inefficiencies, and champion accountability. Publishing value-for-money metrics, consolidating overlapping offices, and empowering leaders from the Global South are key steps toward making the United Nations a more dynamic and effective organization. 

In an age of crisis for multilateralism and big power competition, neutrality cannot mean passivity. The next UN secretary-general needs to be an active steward that bridges divides and unites efforts. They should not merely lead the United Nations, but transform it into a faster, fairer, and more inclusive institution for all. 

UNGA 2025: Major Powers—Not Common Cause—Leading the Way 

When the eightieth session of the United Nations General Assembly opens in New York in September, the widening chasm between the virtues and weaknesses of the UN system will be on full display.  

There are 180 separate agenda points in the Provisional Agenda of the Eightieth Regular Session of the General Assembly [PDF]. Although only a handful pertain specifically to the Palestinian territories, the mood around UNGA will be dominated by widespread outrage toward Israel’s continuation of its war in the Gaza Strip. The urgency of that issue will likely dominate the peace and security aspects of the UNGA agenda, but it is difficult to say what difference this gathering can make in the conflict so long as the United States continues to back Israel. 

UNGA is among the most democratic global forums, given its system of “one country, one vote,” which is a stark contrast to the exclusive nature of the UN Security Council. While UNGA serves as a useful proxy for the global majority of official positions among states, it is a prisoner to the power politics that increasingly dictate geopolitics. 

The question of whether the UNGA meeting helps to set the global agenda around shared responses to common problems, or if it is at the mercy of major powers, seems increasingly tilted toward the latter judgement. 

For instance, on two critical issues—development assistance and arms control—there has been a general downturn in optimism. Some of the richest countries are scaling back their development funding, increasing their defence spending, and preparing for an era of intensifying competition. UNGA will reflect those trends; it cannot reverse them.  

The UN system is also under strain because of wider geopolitical tensions, yet there is still crucial work to be done at UNGA. The United Nations needs to be kept alive. Even if it is hard to make progress in global governance due to disputes between the major powers, groupings of like-minded states should look to deepen their networks to collaborate on resolving challenges of mutual interest.  

In that context, the next UN secretary-general, to be selected in 2026, needs to be an outstanding global communicator. To an extraordinary extent, they need to work across a networked reality, whereby full global consensus is rarely reached but a critical mass of states still seeks common cause on shared challenges. The United Nations can offer vital and unmatched coordination, inspiration, and validation for bespoke efforts to address common problems. The next secretary-general will have to achieve all of that while operating in a UN system facing additional budgetary pressures. 

The United Nations at Eighty: Surging Challenges, Permanent Progress Blockers 

In a sense, the current global state of affairs is acting as a stress test for the UN system. Tensions are escalating around the world, as evidenced by, among other issues, the war in Ukraine, the conflict in the Gaza Strip, the civil war in Sudan, and the gang violence in Haiti. A record number of UN staff members have been killed recently—by both state and nonstate actors—because of a lack of respect for their protected status. Some officials and agencies have even become the target of unilateral sanctions.  

The rules-based order appears to be fracturing, and the United Nations is incapable of addressing that problem due to the attitudes of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the increasingly inoperable Security Council. 

Funding cuts linked to current U.S. policy further afflict certain elements of the system. Some less so, such as UNESCO, and others much harder, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Meanwhile, the United Nations is struggling to maintain its credibility with the Global South, which is pushing for more inclusive multilateralism. Its demands include reforming the United Nations to increase the influence of developing countries in decision-making processes, establishing an equitable global economic order, and combating the growing consequences of climate change more effectively. 

In that context, the upcoming General Assembly meetings, and particularly the 2026 election of the next UN secretary-general, take on even greater significance. The ideal candidate for secretary-general would have a strong personality, unwavering commitment to a peaceful world order, and be outspoken enough to consistently remind the P5—especially China, Russia, and the United States—of their greater responsibility to maintain international peace and security and the need to respect international law. This person should possess transformative leadership skills and the ability to balance the aspirations of the Global South with the interests of the Global North. Preferably, they would be sensitive to issues related to sustainable development and the elimination of economic and technological inequalities, but also have the talent and willingness to engage in conflict prevention and mediation efforts. They also need to improve crisis management at the United Nations. The public’s perception of the organization’s (in)effectiveness hinges particularly on those issues. 

However, given the United Nations’ harsh institutional realities—specifically, the requirement of a unanimous recommendation from all P5 members for a candidate—it is unlikely that someone like that will be elected in 2026. Nevertheless, maximum transparency in the selection process should be demanded. 

Overcoming the Challenges of the United Nations 

Changing geopolitical realities have increased the challenges to the United Nations as the hub of post–World War II multilateralism and a much-needed global authority. Arguably, the most serious challenge is how to stem the threats to global peace, security, and prosperity posed by the wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and other parts of the world, along with climate change, increasing military expenditures, artificial intelligence, poverty, and global health.  

Although the organization has the rules, institutions, and templates to respond to those challenges, and has done fairly well in the areas of disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation, its overall ability to deliver global public goods has been constrained by two main factors. The first is the propensity of the P5 and other superpowers to pursue national interests through self-help and unilateral actions rather than consensus and cooperation. The second is the issue of funding. The United Nations is largely dependent on the United States and other P5 members for its budget, but recent cutbacks on funding, by the United States especially, have further reduced the body’s capacity to meet key Sustainable Development Goals targeting development, poverty reduction, and human security. 

However, those challenges have not diminished the strategic role of the United Nations and its multilateral system as the main forum for equitable, shared, and rules-based global governance and global public goods. That is especially true for the weaker states of the Global South, for whom the United Nations’ interventions in decolonization, establishment of a new international economic order, state fragility mitigation, poverty reduction, Millennium Development Goals, and SDGs have offered protection and a voice in a hegemonic global order dominated by superpowers. For that reason, there have been demands to reform the UN system and expand permanent membership on the UN Security Council to member states from the Global South.  

There can be no doubt that the United Nations is facing the most challenging period in its history. The next secretary-general should be conscious of this historical moment and aim to restore trust and confidence in the United Nations’ ability to function as a credible agent of rules-based global governance. The organization needs to be able to balance the interests of the P5 and other superpowers with the imperatives of global partnership for shared prosperity and security. The new leader should also be able to respond to the demands for reforms in an increasingly turbulent and fragmented world where power has become might and superpowers have increasingly pursued national interests at the expense of the common good of humanity. 

The United Nations Needs to Rebuild Public Trust 

Eighty years have passed since the end of World War II. Japan marked the anniversary of its defeat and the tragic dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with a grand ceremony that called on the world to abolish nuclear weapons and work toward global peace. However, the actions of the United Nations around nuclear nonproliferation at this important juncture have become mere formalities.  

Recent polls clearly reflect Japanese public opinion about the United Nations. In the annual public opinion survey on foreign affairs, conducted by the Genron NPO last year, only 22.6 percent of Japanese respondents believed that the United Nations currently functions as intended. Given the behavior of the Trump administration toward the organization, that pessimistic opinion of the institution is expected to grow. 

The veto powers held by the permanent members of the UN Security Council are at the root of the Japanese people’s loss of faith. Those veto powers mean that the United Nations has been unable to act against Russia, a member of the P5, which invaded another country, massacred its citizens, and threatened it with nuclear weapons. Even after three years of war in Ukraine, the world has failed to bring the conflict to an end.  

Former UN Undersecretary-General Yasushi Akashi, in his book United Nations, once described the United Nations as “not omnipotent, but not powerless either.” Ultimately, the United Nations is an intergovernmental organization, and as such, it is to be expected that the actions of major powers will restrict what it is capable of achieving. However, the major powers should not be allowed to ignore when the majority of UN member states reach consensus.  

It is time for the United Nations to focus primarily on maintaining international peace and security. After all, that is included in the preamble to the charter as one of the missions the United Nations was founded to undertake. The permanent members of the Security Council should clearly demonstrate to the world how they will protect global peace, and if they are unable to do so, the General Assembly should propose the rebuilding of the entire United Nations.   

An unusual film recently gained much attention in Japan. It tells a fanciful story about a Japanese nuclear submarine captain who declares his submarine to be an independent nation and aims to found a UN military force made up of nuclear submarines in cooperation with captains from other countries. Underlying the film’s popularity is a certain level of Japanese resentment toward the current state of global governance.  

Rebuilding the United Nations will require a grand vision, and if discussions on its reconstruction expand globally, expectations for the organization will also rise among the Japanese people. What the United Nations needs now is a leader who can be entrusted with carrying forward its reform. 

The UN: Doing What Is Right, Not What Is Might  

Currently, UN platforms, especially those based in New York, function as they were intended—to ensure that the major powers, particularly the P5 of the UN Security Council, secure their core interests. Herein lies the problem: the United Nations can be successful only to the extent that primary stakeholders agree on its direction and allow the various departments to do their work with minimal interference, which requires the collective will of the global community led by the major powers. 

Therefore, the United Nations itself was not at fault for its tepid results during the Cold War, when political agreement among powerful nations was conspicuously absent. Contrast that to its dramatic successes in the early 1990s after the Cold War, when major powers showed the resolve to redress Saddam Hussein’s aggression in Kuwait, as well as to bring peace to war-torn Cambodia. Alas, that unprecedented level of cooperation lasted only briefly.  

When major powers cooperate, compete, or confront each other in the real world, they do likewise at the United Nations. When states experience geopolitical impasses, they treat the United Nations as a convenient scapegoat and ignore their commitment to uphold the rules and principles enshrined in the UN Charter. To adhere to those principles should be part of, not subordinate to, an individual state’s core interests.  

Human instincts and sense of decency will dictate the way forward. The next secretary-general of the United Nations needs to cope with the systemic challenges of steering the organization to its goals of world peace and protecting the weak and oppressed. In practice, the secretary-general’s ability to have a good relationship with the major powers, especially the P5, will determine the degree to which compromise, consensus, and cooperation can be achieved among member states.