80th Birthday Blues: UN's Fight to Stay Relevant

Today, the world feels a bit like it's unraveling. With wars in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, climate disasters are displacing millions, populism and nationalism are on the rise. But the United Nations, the institution that was built to hold it all together, is now under attack by one of its founding members, and it's facing a shrinking budget. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has proposed a 15% cut to the organization's 2026 budget, which is around $500 million. So, can the United Nations remain relevant in this moment? And what happens if it can't? To help answer these big questions, I'm joined by two people who know the UN inside and out. Karin Mamal Vanyan, who's worked for three former UN Secretary-General's, now leads Kofi Annan's foundation, and Richard Gowen, longtime UN watcher and the UN director at the International Crisis Group. I'm Leslie Vingemore, president and CEO of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and welcome to DeepDish. So, here we are. The UN is turning 80. We have, as we all know, the return of the Trump administration, an administration that is not, in general, friendly to multilateralism, not specifically friendly to the United Nations. We have great power competition, also not new between the United States and China. We have many wars. We have migration and climate crisis. We have a desperate need for humanitarianism. We have budget cuts. There's so much here. Richard, let me start with you. At this moment, how are you thinking about this year's meeting of the General Assembly? Maybe you can say a few words about some of these pressures and how folks in the know are thinking about the week ahead. Well, there's a lot of nervousness about the week and the longer-term future of the UN. Obviously, the main focus for most leaders coming to New York is actually President Trump and leaders, I think, probably more interested in what Trump has to say on things like tariffs or relations with China than they are about the details of the UN system. But I think there is also an awareness that the UN is facing very hard times indeed. The US has cut off effectively all funding. To the organization, and that means that the Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, is having to announce some pretty big cuts. Staff numbers are being cut by about 20% in the UN Secretariat. And then in the wider world, humanitarian agencies, which were especially reliant on American funding, are really struggling. And there's a reality that the UN is going to be feeding fewer people this year, vaccinating fewer people, sheltering fewer people. So it is a pretty unhappy birthday. Let me ask you one follow-up question. You said the US is effectively cutting all funding. What does that mean? How significant is the US as a contributor and how much is it actually cutting? Well, different bits of the UN get money in different ways. So the US is meant to cover about 25% of the organization's regular running costs and 25% of its blue helmet peacekeeping cost. So far since President Trump returned to office, the US has paid precisely zero cents, zero dollars. And that's not just a delay. It looks intentional. It's not just a procedural holdup. But then humanitarian agencies are funded in a different way. And the US actually was paying a third to 40% of the costs of the main humanitarian agencies like the World Food Programme prior to this year. Now that money hasn't been cut off completely, but it's been reduced to a trickle. And Tom Fletcher, who is the former British diplomat who runs the UN Humanitarian Coordination Office, said that so far this year the UN has got less than 20% of the overall funding that it needs for humanitarian work. There's always a shortage of money for humanitarian work, but thanks to the US it's become especially acute. Okay, so we're facing a challenging situation geopolitically. Everybody wants to know what President Trump is going to say, and there's no money. Karin, tell us, what are you expecting? What are you looking at in the week ahead? Well, listen, I don't think anyone going to someone's birthday party who's celebrating her 80th birthday would be surprised to find that the birthday girl is not in top shape. The UN is in very, very bad shape. But I think it's also an opportunity to remember all the extraordinary things that the UN has delivered over 80 years. It has made the world safer and more prosperous in many, many ways. And there's just no denying it. It has delivered extraordinary things like the eradication of smallpox, the restoration of the ozone layer. So I think there will be a lot of this said, which does not distract from the present crisis. But it will be a useful reminder. It's also the opportunity to see that even in recent month, even with the U.S. disengaged, the UN has still been able to deliver on some important things. There was a UN conference on the oceans a few months ago that adopted a very important agreement that is going to protect part of the world's ocean. There was, of course, a pandemic treaty adopted here in Geneva, where I'm sitting, which will be very important as well. So even in this very weakened state, and without the U.S. involved in either of these instances, is still able to deliver. However, there will be a lot of countries, small countries in particular, that will make the point that without the UN, they are toast, basically. So I think all of this will be said to remind people why the organization was created. Let me give you one data point as we take our talk forward. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs just published a UN brief on public opinion data, and the findings are extraordinary. Two-thirds, 66 percent of Americans say that the United States should be more willing to make decisions within the United Nations, even if it means that the United States sometimes has to go along with a policy that is not its first choice. You break it down, there's obviously a partisan divide. Only 44 percent of Republicans feel that way. I have to tell you, I looked at this data, and I thought, "I'm shocked that 44 percent of Republicans believe that the United States should make decisions within the UN, even if it leads to something that is second, third, fourth, fifth choice for the United States." So let's drill down a little bit on this, and I want to start with the Security Council and Great Power Politics. Richard, let me come to you. You wrote a fascinating piece, I think it was a year or so ago. When everybody was saying, "Forget it, Security Council is over, Russia has invaded Ukraine. It's violated the most fundamental tenet of the UN Charter, sovereignty, and China's not really doing anything about it, if anything, it's supporting Russia." You made the point that even on this question, but also more generally, that the Security Council continues to be functioning and relevant. Can you tell us a little bit about what you argued then, where you are now on this question? You will read a lot of stories in which people say the Security Council is paralyzed. And it's definitely true that the Council has been gridlocked over Ukraine, over Gaza, and it's been ineffectual in some other major conflicts too, like the Civil War in Myanmar. The point I keep hammering on is that if you go back to the Cold War, there were times when the Security Council didn't meet at all. In 1959, it didn't meet for over three months, it passed one resolution in an entire year. Now, for all its problems, the Council is still overseeing 60,000 peacekeepers worldwide. It runs over 10 sanctions regimes, including sanctions against al-Qaeda, backstopping humanitarian efforts in places like Afghanistan. So although it is very divided, and although it is not the sort of space for cooperation we had in the 1990s, it is still a clearing house where the Russians and the Chinese and the US do compromise a lot of the time. And no, actually, even President Trump, who does not like the UN, does seem to recognize that the Council might have some value. He talks about the UN focusing on its founding mission of peace and security. And so I would never pretend that the Council is living up to its UN charter obligations, and I think it's failed a lot of people very horribly in recent years. But I think it is still actually a space for a minimum of cooperation, and we should hold on to that. Can you give me, just in the last, I don't know, six months, something concrete? What has happened at the Security Council? What debate has taken place that kind of proves its value as a forum for deliberation, collective dissent, visibility over the tough choices and the illegal acts that are being committed? What stands out to you? Well, it's worth saying that the Council has been in a very weird state throughout this year. There's some big debates on issues like Sudan where we understand that US diplomats don't even really have clear instructions on what they're meant to be saying. The Trump administration right now is pushing for the Council to agree to an expanded policing operation in Haiti to try and deal with the gangs. So there are still some cases where even this US administration wants UN action. I mean, that's quite extraordinary, Richard, because I don't think this is getting headlines, right, that the Trump administration does have an interest in South Sudan or Haiti. Corinne, can I get your thoughts on this? I mean, are we just kind of sort of searching in the bottom of a barrel for something to justify the fact that we still have a UN Security Council that, as we all know, no longer reflects distribution of power amongst states that, you know, we've been talking about reform forever. The right folks aren't on it. The folks who are on it aren't fielding an ambassador, let alone paying their dues. Is the Security Council still a relevant body when it comes to the big questions of peace and security? Do you agree with Richard or do you have a very different take? I would never dare disagree with Richard, first of all. But I think that hopes for genuine reform of the Security Council are very slim. I mean, nothing is important is going to happen in the next few years that is going to, you know, reform the Security Council. There have been some tinkering at the margins, they are initiated by Lichtenstein of all member states and one of the smallest member states to force countries that use their veto in the Security Council to force them afterwards to go to the General Assembly and explain themselves. So there have been things like this, more transparency in the way the Security Council works. But the fact is, it is paralyzed. The fact is, it is not delivering on peace. So many good things are happening in the system. Many things are being delivered. But on the peace, which is the initial commission of the organization, little is happening and part of it is because of the Security Council. So that is what worries me is this general narrative on peace and war, which the Security Council's paralysis is feeding, of course. Okay. So there's no money. The UN Security Council is more or less paralyzed. It still matters. It gives visibility to the hypocrisy, the violations of international law, of great powers. But the General Assembly is different, right? It's everybody gets a seat, more or less. And it is a forum for a lot of countries across the global south, across the world to come up and to have that voice. Richard, how many member states are going to field a representative in the General Assembly? I think pretty much all of the 190 plus UN members are going to have someone representing them. Everyone talks about how the UN is being displaced by the G20 and other global clubs. And to some extent, that is true. But you know, it is also noteworthy that for a lot of countries that don't get G20 invites or don't get BRICS invites, this is the platform that they've got. And Corinne mentioned small states, especially smaller states really do value this as a space where they are able to speak, but also work in coalition with other countries to address issues like international development. And I think big powers like the US sometimes undervalue that. Now, one US diplomat once grumply told me that the General Assembly is for small countries and we're not small country, but small countries, when you put them all together, they add up to quite a lot of the world. Sure. And I mean, the G20 has what, 20 seats and you've just said 190. So it is a huge thing, right? In an age where you could just dial in that 190 states are sending folks, leaders to the meeting. Corinne, what do you make of this? And what do you think is going to be top of mind at the UNGA? I think the crisis that the organization is going through will be top of mind. And I have to tell you, I was with the UN for over three decades. And there were many, many crises over those decades. And I don't remember a single year when we were in a good budgetary situation. However, none of those crises were similar to what we're going through now. And this is because it's not really a liquidity crisis. It really is a legitimacy crisis. The immediate problem is the money. And I think a lot of the countries will be discussing that because the Secretary General has put forward important proposals to cut the budget, but everyone is saying those proposals don't go to the core of the issue, which is really what is the purpose of the organization today? Do we need to reform the charter? What are the issues that this organization should look at that were never mentioned in the charter? Climate change, AI and so on. But I hope that those who come really go deeper than just the liquidity crisis because it's so much more than that. Okay. So you've raised this question of legitimacy. It's extremely important. What is the legitimacy crisis? 2003, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was seen by most people to be illegal. It certainly wasn't approved by the UN Security Council. It was seen by the United States to be illegitimate and legal, but not by others. Why is the legitimacy crisis so grave now? China once sees the United Nations as central to its engagement in the international order. Other states are turning up. So why is this different? First of all, just a reminder that it was Kofi Annan that said that the invasion of Iraq was not in accordance with the charter and he paid a heavy price for it. But listen, it's because there is a convergence at the moment. In fact, that major powers are really trying to go it alone, each in their own sphere. And the fact that many, many smaller countries who value the UN are nevertheless very critical of it and are taking a good set and look at the normative framework that the UN is built on, the very architecture and saying this does not necessarily reflect our values or our participation. So I think it's the convergence of these two things. Many countries in the global south questioning some of the normative framework and several major powers thinking they can go it alone. And this has never happened before. Richard, how significant is this? How much of this is about Gaza? I think that Gaza is clearly the dominant topic for the General Assembly in terms of a conflict that grips all UN members. And I think that it's worth saying that for a lot of UN members, including friends of Israel, there is a sense that the organization has a special responsibility to the Palestinians. That's because the UN has been dealing with the Palestinian question since the 1940s and since the creation of Israel. So we're going to be hearing a huge amount about the Israeli Hamas War in New York. I would just add, though, I think there are some other reasons why there's a sense of illegitimacy. And actually, just 10 years ago, the UN was doing quite well. And 10 years ago, we had the Paris Climate Change Agreement. And we had the agreement of the Sustainable Development Goals, which were meant to provide a framework for ending extreme poverty. And if you talk to diplomats from the Global South, they point to those two agreements and say, what has been done about those? Because it's quite clear that we actually have already passed some of the limits on global warming that were agreed in Paris. And actually, in some parts of the world, extreme poverty has been rising since the COVID crisis. And the UN has made it very clear there's no way that we're going to fulfill the Sustainable Development Goals by the target date of 2030. And so, colleagues from much of the Global South say, those were promises. And those are promises that are not being fulfilled. So why should we trust the US or the Europeans in future UN negotiations? And so that, I think, does add to this legitimacy issue that Corinne was highlighting. Corinne, you said very early on in our conversation, there's more to the UN than the Security Council. There is this broader question, the Sustainable Development Goals. There's a problem of humanitarianism. We've heard that the money has been dramatically cut on this side also. Maybe can you give us your assessment of what the UN can do when it comes to humanitarianism in this highly constrained moment and also with a sharp edge of what is going to be discussed on this front that's significant at the UNGA? Listen, there are many, many things that the UN still can do to address people's immediate needs, as Richard was saying. I mean, for instance, hunger is on the rise. Hunger that we were supposed also to get rid of by 2030 is on the rise. But things like the immediate needs of people, food, shelter, education, that the UN can help deliver, but not by itself. And of course, more and more people are saying we have to stop treating the immediate needs of people in crisis as different from the long-term needs of people in economies that are not functioning properly. So I think there is a growing realization that the UN has to work differently and stop the silos of humanitarian and development work. There will be a lot of discussion of this also during the General Assembly. Second, there will be a lot of discussion about what Richard has said before. That is that only 20% of urgent humanitarian needs are being funded at the moment. So I think what is needed is for the UN to refocus on helping countries deliver on these immediate needs. And I think part of the legitimacy crisis that we were discussing is that we have to go back to very basic needs that people need fulfilled. And that would help really the UN regain some of its legitimacy. But every crisis presents opportunities that the crisis today at the UN, the liquidity crisis, has been really the opportunity to rethink completely the way the UN delivers assistance. And I've never seen the thinking going so fast and so deep into how things must be changed, how we have to rely on local civil society organizations much more than before to deliver assistance, for instance. I think that Corinne is right. There is a bit of a sense around the UN that this is a reckoning that was going to come at some point. And Trump has accelerated a lot of problems. There were problems that we knew were out there. And sometimes the best you can do in a moment of shock is to start thinking and start reframing how you engage. I think there is a clear reality that we're going to have a smaller UN. No one questions that. What does that mean, a smaller UN? A UN that is institutionally smaller and employs fewer people in New York and Geneva. I think Corinne and I probably hear from a friend today who's lost a job in the UN agency. But also a UN that probably does less, at least in terms of direct operational activities and does rely more, as Corinne was saying, on local partners to provide aid. I think the question is, are we going to shrink the UN in a sort of thoughtful fashion where we really look at where the organization has impact and where the organization is doing stuff that maybe is not so significant? Or are we just going to have a crash dire because of budget cuts and shrink in a disorganized fashion? Guterres, the secretary general, has been laying out ideas for cuts. He's laid out some ideas for institutional reforms. And the irony is that he's entering an inevitable lame duck period because he's only got 15 more months in the job. And so actually, in May 4, Guterres is successor, whoever she or he is, to sort of really do some of the big institutional reforms that the UN will require to stay afloat. Okay. So you've gotten us onto a topic that I know our listeners are curious about. I'm curious about. We all want to know. The race to the next UN secretary general is on. Who's it going to be? Is this the moment for a woman? Is this going to be somebody from Latin America and the Caribbean? What do you imagine? Or how do we think about the slate of candidates? With President Trump's return to office, the frontrunner was generally agreed to be Mia Motley, the prime minister of Barbados, who's a very impressive speaker and very impressive on trying to change and development. I mean, her politics are some miles to the left of the current US administration and the veto powers and the security council ultimately get to choose who becomes secretary general. So Motley's star has somewhat fallen. The person whose star is on the rise is Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA, the Atomic Energy Agency, who is openly campaigning now and is pointing out that he has negotiated with all the big powers over Iran and over Zaporizhia, the nuclear plant in Ukraine. So he's now the sort of conventional wisdom frontrunner, but what we've seen in a lot of races over the years is that the conventional wisdom frontrunner falls before the final choice. And so I think that there are still some other really serious candidates like Rebecca Grinspan, who's the head of the UN Trade Agency in Geneva, Ankitad, who have a shot. And I think this is going to go to the wire. I think it's going to be super hard to find someone who is really acceptable to the US, Russia and China. Yeah, if you can find any Latin American women who are popular with all those three powers, you know, you tell them to give the UN a call. I mean, here at the council, you know, Chicago's fielded a pope, we'd love to field a UN sect gen. I'm guessing that's not going to happen. But Corinne, how do you see this race unfolding? Well, I mean, naturally, I want the next sectional to be a woman, of course. I think only a woman can write this mess at this point. You know, seriously, you know, there was great hope 10 years ago that a woman would be elected and then Guterres was elected. So although there is a very strong campaign to elect a woman this time, I just don't want to get my hopes too far up because I don't want to be disappointed again. But it doesn't really matter at the end of the day, whether it's a woman or a man, whether he or she is from Latin America. What matters is the kind of attributes that Section General will need in the current environment. The difference in terms of, you know, Mia Motley's big issues, climate sustainability and Rafael Grossi, your nuclear, both absolutely critical issues, but very, very different. Who leads next? I want to bring us to a close, though, by taking us right back to this week of the UN General Assembly. Richard, you've written very powerfully about the United States, about Trump at the UN. And part of the argument you've made is that there are areas of cooperation in which some states breathe a sigh of relief when they can simply move forward without the United States. Sum it up. What is a world going to look like if the United States stays in the United Nations, but it doesn't play ball? Well, Corinne actually referred to some recent UN meetings on issues like oceans and pandemics where the US has stayed away and other countries have still agreed to treaties, or at least big international agreements. I mean, diplomats are starting to talk about something they call the international community minus one, which is basically UN negotiating processes that pretty much everyone participates in except the US. And it is possible that we're going to go into a world where I don't think the US is going to leave the UN completely because it wouldn't want to give up its veto in the Security Council, but the US just doesn't engage on a lot of big processes that other countries care about. And I think when it comes to something like public health or something like environmental protection, middle powers, countries like Brazil actually can drive an agenda in the absence of the US. I think when it comes to some of the very hard stuff like nuclear nonproliferation, then we have a real problem if the US is not in the room. But there are still many areas where the UN will continue to move forward, even if Washington is sulking in the corner. Corinne, your thoughts? Can the UN kind of muddle through the next UN Secretary General won't have all that long in office before there is a US election and a new US president? Does it matter whether the US is sort of front and center? It does matter because the UN, and I've said it before, can muddle along, as you said, but it's just not going to be able to tackle the very big existential threats that we're facing without the US being fully engaged in. The Paris Agreement will not have happened without Obama's push for it. We have seen here in Geneva what difference it has made to the human rights council when the US is engaged or not. So I think yes, of course, the UN can and will survive without the US, but it's just not going to achieve the same range of things without US positive engagement. So I guess that is a call to action for the United States leadership, but again, just to close by reminding our listeners, two-thirds of Americans want the US to make decisions within the UN, even if it means that the US doesn't get its first-choice policy. That is an extraordinary result. Corinne and Richard, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you, Leslie. Thank you very much indeed. And thank you for listening to this episode of Deep Dish on Global Affairs. I'm your host, Leslie Vinjimori. Talk to you next week. Deep Dish is a production of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. If you enjoyed today's episode, make sure to follow Deep Dish on Global Affairs wherever you get your podcasts. And if someone you know might find it interesting, send it their way. As a reminder, the opinions you heard belong to the people who expressed them and not to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. This episode is produced by Tria Raimundo and Christina Cologne, with support from Marty O'Connell and Lizzie Sokolich. Thank you for listening.