Reform, or lose faith: Governments pressure the UN to reflect the world as it is

Many countries believe that the UN can only remain credible and effective if its institutions better reflect the realities of the 21st century.

From questions about Security Council representation of the effectiveness of institutions, delegates repeatedly returned to the relationship between power, justice and legitimacy.

The third and final analysis section highlights the main themesUN News a look at some of the speeches at the annual General Debate of the 193 Member States attending the UN General Assembly.

As Secretary General Antonio Guterres stated: “The United Nations exists because power requires rules – and humanity needs a place where power answers to principle.”

Who gets a seat at the table?

Security Council reform is at the center of discussions regarding UN reform.

Speaker after speaker argued that representation and legitimacy are inseparable, and Africa the continued absence of permanent membership is a recurring theme.

Kenya bluntly said: “The equality proclaimed in this Assembly ends at the door of the Security Council.”

Guyana makes a similar case for the wider world: “We need a Security Council that reflects the geopolitical realities of the 21st century, not the power structures of 1945; a Council that embraces the emergence of multipolarity in our world, including permanent representation from Africa, as well as Latin America and the Caribbean.”

UN Secretary General Guterres agreed and called the status quo untenable: “A 21st century Security Council without a permanent seat in Africa is unfair and untenable.”

President of the General Assembly Khalilur Rahman also expressed similar sentiments: “Africa cannot be asked to wait indefinitely for its rightful place in the Council.”

Consensus about reform, disagreement about how

Although support for reform was widespread, the government proposed different solutions.

Spanish went further, calling for fairer regional representation and eliminating veto rights outright: “We need to reform the Security Council so that all regions of the world have fair representation, and so that we can eliminate the veto power of permanent members.”

Russiaone of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council, took a more cautious approach in supporting “expanded representation in Asia, Africa, and Latin America” but added that reforms should not “undermine the intergovernmental nature of the UN system or erode the prerogatives of the UN Security Council and its Permanent Members.”

Trust must be earned

A second issue emerged this week: Trust, and how easily it is eroded when rules are applied selectively.

Hungary argued that cooperation and self-interest are not in conflict: “We believe that national interests and international cooperation should not conflict with each other,” and added that “The United Nations cannot claim confidence.

Several delegates linked people’s trust in international institutions to the consistent application of rules and principles. Concerns were raised about unequal treatment, selective application of international law, and failure to respond effectively to crises.

A slimmer PBB?

Even though the UN has fought for it UN80 Initiativeaiming to make the UN more coherent, effective and responsive to today’s challenges, countries also offer competing visions of operational reform.

Switzerland And Costa Rica emphasizes clear priorities, efficiency and measurable results.

The Chairman of the General Assembly highlighted overlapping mandates, bureaucratic silos and the need for better coordination at country level.

However, some speakers warned against viewing the reforms as a cost-saving measure.

China said reforms must improve institutional performance and not simply reduce budgets and mandates.

Guyana believes that resources should be commensurate with the responsibilities assigned to the Organization.

Spanish calls on UN agencies, funds and programs to receive more resources and greater executive capacity.

The difference is not just a matter of expenditure. They consider what the UN should do, how much authority it should have and whether better implementation requires stronger operational capacity – or a narrower institutional role.

Is the UN fit for purpose?

The question that frequently arises throughout the debate is not whether the UN should exist, but whether the UN can produce results.

President of the General Assembly Rahman put it most poignantly: “Outside these walls, people are not asking whether the UN still exists. They are asking whether the UN is functioning.” He emphasized that it is people that matter, not processes: “Every penny must be invested to achieve impact on the ground for the people we serve.”

That United States of America offers a contrasting model based on institutional austerity: “We cut the UN budget for the first time, cutting it by 15 percent by 2026 and eliminating more than 4,000 positions from the UN bureaucracy,” while rejecting international involvement in areas considered national prerogatives.

One line unites almost everyone

Despite all the differences over vetoes, institutional power, and competing models of reform, delegates kept returning to the same central issues.

Namely that the scale of the current problems has outstripped the structures intended to solve them and that Member States need to work towards building more resilient and effective organizations.

As Guyana noted: “This is why we must not abandon multilateralism because it is imperfect; we must renew it because humanity still needs it.”