This week marks the 80th anniversary of the (UNGA), and world leaders have gathered in New York for the occasion. But amid mounting geopolitical tensions, rising climate change and increased challenges to the global rules-based order, the mood is not exactly celebratory.
Instead, it would appear that is being challenged like never before.
One major reason is the split in the over and Russia’s Its peacekeeping missions have also drawn criticism, particularly in Africa. And last year, a group of climate policy experts, including former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres, former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and the prominent climate scientist Johan Rockstrom, called the “no longer fit for purpose.”
But stresses the importance of the United Nations to tackle global issues. “No country can stop a pandemic alone. No army can halt rising temperatures,” he said on Tuesday while addressing the UN General Assembly.
What, exactly, is the UN General Assembly?
One of the six principal organs constituting the United Nations, the is the main representative body, offering space to deliberate policies and pass recommendations through resolutions.
UNGA resolutions are, in effect, merely statements of intent, expressing an internationally agreed-upon position. They are generally not enforceable by law.
“We have no carrots and no sticks,” Guterres admitted as he was speaking to the challenges the UN faces to make a practical difference in security terms. “And, as we have no carrots and no sticks in a world in which we have the geopolitical divides that we have, it’s extremely difficult to make the protagonists of the present conflicts understand the need to come to peace.”
Can the UN really help bring peace?
The Security Council (UNSC) is considered the main global body for preserving international peace and security, but has long faced criticism for its limited composition, which frequently leads to key members blocking resolutions.
It is made up of five permanent members: The UK, US, Russia, China and France — all of which are nuclear powers. There are also 10 non-permanent members, elected every two years on a rotational system based on region.
Crucially, the five permanent members have the power to veto a decision unilaterally. In contrast, seven of the 10 non-permanent UNSC members must reject a resolution to prevent it from passing.
This power has consistently been used by veto-holding powers to promote their own interests, such as when the demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza or condemning the war in Ukraine.
Critics say the Security Council is outdated and unrepresentative. This is particularly true for Africa and South America, which have no permanent representative on the Security Council.
Daniel Forti, a senior UN analyst at the International Crisis Group think tank, told DW that reform is hard to come by because the “permanent five members are reluctant to agree on any changes that would dilute their influence.”
“Few would suggest that the Security Council is functioning well right now,” he continued. “Geopolitical clashes between the US, China and Russia have made it all but impossible for the Council to respond to the world’s worst conflicts over the past decade. This has seriously dented the Council’s — and by extension, the UN’s — credibility.”
Do US withdrawals leave the UN struggling for funding?
The UN is funded in the first instance by contributions from its member states, in the form of mandatory donations based on a country’s size and wealth and voluntary contributions, usually from more wealthy countries.
Though the United States still contributes to the organization, Donald Trump’s decision to sign a slew of executive orders withdrawing from several UN institutions and programs, including the , has left the organization in some financial difficulty.
Earlier this month, Guterres proposed a cut of $500 million (€425 million) to the UN budget next year, equivalent to about 15% of its core budget, down from $3.7 billion to $3.2 billion. Initiatives like the World Food Programme ($9.7-billion budget), the for refugees ($10.7 billion) and the WHO ($6.8 billion) cost even more and also face financial uncertainty.
“The aid cuts and freezes that Washington has put into place are forcing the organization into a period of considerable retrenchment,” Forti said. “No other country is stepping up to fill all of the funding gaps left behind. This means that the UN will need to make very difficult cuts, not only within the system but also in the support it provides people around the world. This means less vaccination campaigns, less education initiatives, and less support for refugee resettlement.”
Can the UN reform and become more relevant?
Calls for reform to the UN have existed for almost as long as the organization, but are growing louder and more widespread. Irish President Michael D. Higgins called for the UN to be “remodeled for the future, giving agency to Africa, Asia and Latin America” last year.
In February, Trump said: “I’ve always felt that the UN has tremendous potential. It’s not living up to that potential right now.” He doubled down on the claim at the General Assembly this week.
Forti also sees a need, but also the potential, for change. “The organization can reform. But it will be a bumpy road along the way. Serious reform will take time and will likely be a painful exercise for countries that rely on the UN for support,” he said.
“Getting the UN to its next era will require a clear vision of reform from the next secretary-general, and considerable diplomatic backing from many UN members. The organization has survived turbulent periods at other points in its history. Doing so again will require countries to make a strong case for why the UN matters to their people,” he added.
Edited by: Rob Mudge
The post Is the United Nations still fit for purpose? appeared first on Deutsche Welle.
