UNITED NATIONS, Might 27 (IPS) – In 1945, with cities in ruins and hope stretched skinny, 50 nations gathered in San Francisco and reached for a greater world. From the ashes of fascism, genocide, and world battle, they cast a constitution — a binding declaration that peace, justice, and human dignity should be protected via worldwide cooperation.
The United Nations was born not from idealism, however necessity. It was designed to stop collapse.
Now, almost 80 years later, the UN faces a special sort of disaster — a gradual erosion of belief, legitimacy, and effectiveness. And but, the sense of urgency that birthed the UN is absent from the reforms meant to put it aside.
Final week, Secretary-Common António Guterres launched the “UN80 Initiative” — a promise to streamline, restructure, and modernize the establishment. The speech was technically sound. It named actual issues: fragmentation, inefficiency, and monetary pressure.
However it didn’t do what this second calls for. As a result of reform with out function is choreography, not change. And maybe extra dangerously, it might reinforce the very energy asymmetries it claims to redress.
I watched the speech not simply as an expert evaluator or former advisor, however as somebody who has walked this technique — from post-conflict zones to coverage tables — for over three a long time. I’ve seen the braveness of communities and the inertia of companies. And I do know when reform is efficiency. UN80, as at present framed, dangers changing into precisely that.
What Was Mentioned
The Secretary-Common laid out three workstreams:
- A complete evaluation of all mandates assigned to the Secretariat by Member States;
- Identification of operational efficiencies throughout departments and entities;
- Structural reforms — together with company mergers and the formation of thematic clusters.
He acknowledged that this could be a system-wide course of, not confined to the Secretariat alone, and emphasised the aim of constructing a extra nimble, coordinated, and responsive UN. He described the UN80 Initiative as a response to geopolitical tensions, technological change, rising battle, and shrinking assets. And he framed it as an effort to higher serve each those that depend on the UN and the taxpayers who fund it.
These are actual issues. The system is underneath stress. However whereas the executive prognosis is obvious, the political and strategic roadmap stays imprecise.
Construction can not substitute for technique, and operational tweaks can not resolve foundational incoherence. Reform should start with readability about what the UN is supposed to be — and for whom it’s accountable.
However What Was Not Mentioned: Strategic Function
Crucial query — reform for what? — stays unanswered.
What’s the United Nations for within the twenty first century? Is it a humanitarian responder? A normative engine? A technical platform? A peace dealer? A rights defender?
The UN was by no means supposed to be a donor-driven supply contractor. It was designed to carry the road in opposition to battle, inequality, and tyranny. However in latest a long time, it has been slowly remodeled right into a service paperwork, depending on earmarked funds, political favors, and personal partnerships.
Till the UN reclaims its strategic function, structural reform will solely masks decay.
Who Holds the Energy?
Energy within the UN system has shifted — not democratically, however informally:
- The P5 nonetheless maintain vetoes over international peace and safety;
- The G7 and G20 form international growth and finance from exterior ECOSOC;
- Vertical funds (GCF, GEF, CIFs) function in parallel, accountable extra to their boards than to international norms;
- Main donors outline the agenda via earmarks;
- And key management posts are quietly traded by geopolitical bloc.
UN80 is silent on this. However no reform is significant with out confronting the place energy truly lives.
The Mirage of Clustering
I keep in mind sitting in a authorities workplace in a post-conflict nation a couple of years in the past, attempting to elucidate why three totally different UN companies had proven as much as provide almost similar assist on catastrophe threat planning. The native official — exhausted, well mannered — leaned again and requested me, “Is the UN not one household? Why can we get 5 cousins and no mother or father?”
That is the phantasm that clustering now dangers reinforcing. By merging companies underneath thematic umbrellas, UN80 means that organizational dysfunction may be resolved via coordination and effectivity. However these of us who’ve labored within the subject know: coordination with out readability, and construction with out belief, hardly ever delivers.
Clustering will not be inherently unhealthy. However it isn’t a shortcut to legitimacy. Effectivity will not be the identical as coherence, and coherence will not be the identical as possession.
You can’t engineer belief via organigrams. You will need to earn it via transparency, participation, and shared accountability. If Member States and native actors aren’t a part of shaping how capabilities are grouped — and extra importantly, how they’re ruled — then the outcome will not be reform. It’s rearrangement.
Workers know this. Many aren’t resisting change — they’re resisting erasure. Clustering threatens not simply jobs, however identities and mandates. It dangers eroding technical experience in favor of managerial simplicity.
True reform would begin from the underside: from nations asking what they want from the UN, and from folks asking who speaks for them. Clustering needs to be a results of that dialogue — not an alternative choice to it.
With out that grounding, we threat constructing silos with broader partitions and narrower doorways — bureaucratic bunkers, not bridges.
Historical past has proven us — from Delivering as One to UNDAF harmonization — that coordination can not substitute for voice. Clustering, completed flawed, is not going to clear up dysfunction. It’s going to make it more durable to see.
If political appointments stay untouched, and if integration is led by finances strain moderately than strategic logic, clustering will not be innovation. It’s consolidation of energy — wearing reformist language.
And historical past warns us: Delivering as One, the QCPR, UNDAF harmonization — all promised coordination. Few delivered accountability. Coordination with out possession, and construction with out technique, is not going to renew the system. It’s going to solely harden its fragilities.
The Case of UN DESA
UN DESA is an emblem of the UN’s inner confusion. Created to assist ECOSOC, it now capabilities as a quasi-programmatic actor — duplicating the work of UNDP, UNCTAD, and regional commissions, usually with out subject engagement or operational accountability.
DESA illustrates what occurs when reform avoids politics: roles blur, duplication grows, and belief erodes.
Nation Possession: The Loudest Silence
UN80 dangers changing into an elite mission formed by donors and technocrats, whereas the overwhelming majority of Member States — particularly these nonetheless recovering from colonization, debt, and local weather injustice — are not noted of the room. That’s not multilateralism. That’s managed decline.
The International South — those that rely most on UN coordination, human rights mechanisms, and technical neutrality — had been absent from this imaginative and prescient.
The place was their voice in designing UN80? The place had been SIDS, LDCs, post-conflict governments, or frontline communities? How can reform be reliable if it isn’t co-created with these it would have an effect on most?
The Funding Downside
Guterres acknowledged monetary stress — however sidestepped the reality:
- UN financing is essentially non-core, non-predictable, and donor-controlled;
- Companies compete for funding moderately than coordinate for impression;
- International funds have extra leverage than ECOSOC, and fewer accountability.
An actual reform would suggest a new multilateral funding compact — one which aligns with nationwide priorities, funds coordination as a worldwide public good, and dismantles dependency.
Do We Want One other Struggle to Reform the UN?
We aren’t simply dealing with disaster fatigue. We’re watching the gradual re-emergence of one thing extra harmful — the normalization of authoritarianism, xenophobia, and surveillance disguised as safety.
Throughout areas, governments are shrinking civic area, dismissing worldwide norms, and weaponizing worry. The ghosts of fascism are now not metaphor. They’re legislative proposals, detention facilities, and unchecked algorithms.
The UN was created to stop this. However except it reclaims its ethical readability and structural legitimacy, it would change into a bystander to its personal irrelevance.
The UN Constitution was written throughout battle. The system it birthed was flawed, however pressing, and anchored in a imaginative and prescient that human dignity should be defended past borders.
Now we face cascading crises: ecological collapse, democratic backsliding, digital authoritarianism, and the erosion of world norms. But reform is handled as an inner finances train.
Do we actually want one other disaster to confront the imbalance of voice, energy, and function on this system?
We already know what wants to vary. What we lack is political will, institutional humility, and ethical creativeness.
Reform for What?
Not for steadiness sheets. Not for organizational charts.
Reform for justice. Reform for relevance. Reform for a world that won’t wait.
Till we outline the aim, no quantity of restructuring will restore credibility.
Last Ideas
UN80, as at present framed, doesn’t problem the logic that broke the system. It dangers changing into the subsequent chapter in an extended historical past of reforms that depart energy untouched.
If we would like greater than managerialism — if we would like that means — we should:
- Declare the UN’s core perform on this century;
- Finish political appointments that corrode management integrity;
- Combine vertical funds underneath multilateral coordination;
- Restore ECOSOC because the reliable heart of financial governance;
- And above all, heart these whom the system was created to serve.
The Constitution was a promise. UN80 is a take a look at.
Allow us to cease pretending reform is impartial. Allow us to confront the politics, observe the cash, and identify what we owe the long run.
Allow us to be braver than the second expects.
This critique will not be a dismissal of the UN. It’s an insistence that it dwell as much as its founding promise. I write from inside — to not tear it down, however to carry it to account.
Stephanie Hodge is a global evaluator and former UN advisor who has labored throughout 140 nations. She writes on governance, multilateral reform, and local weather fairness.
IPS UN Bureau
Comply with @IPSNewsUNBureau
Comply with IPS Information UN Bureau on Instagram
© Inter Press Service (2025) — All Rights Reserved. Authentic supply: Inter Press Service
