Published in the Economist on 24 June, 2025
"When the Charter of the United Nations was signed, 80 years ago this week, President Harry Truman emphasised that the document’s value lay only in the will of governments to use it. “The job”, he said, “will tax the moral strength and fibre of us all.”
That was perhaps more evident in 1945. Today, we seem to have forgotten what is required for multilateralism to function—and why. Opting for peace over war may seem obvious. But it took the horror of two world wars to find agreement on how to maintain that peace.
In the post-war era, countries did exert their moral strength, to varying degrees, to co-operate in building a world of much greater peace, security, prosperity and respect for human rights. That world is far from perfect but much progress has been made.
Conflicts continue, but there has been no third world war. No nuclear weapon has been used in conflict since 1945. Even at the height of the cold war, countries came together to eradicate smallpox. In 1987 the Montreal Protocol was adopted, reversing the destruction of the ozone layer. Multilateral initiatives have helped reduce the number of children dying before their fifth birthday by 60% since 1990. The hard-fought promotion and protection of rights—particularly those of women—has transformed lives everywhere. And more recently, in 2015, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris agreement on climate set out agendas to end poverty for good and protect the planet.
These achievements are worth celebrating. Yet we find ourselves at a juncture at which celebration would feel absurd. The UN is slipping into dysfunction as some of its traditional champions, notably the United States, retreat from multilateral co-operation, cut funding and disregard the rule of law when it suits them.
The absence of Truman’s “moral strength” is nowhere more glaring than at the un Security Council. Largely due to its veto-wielding five permanent members, the council has failed to prevent many conflicts over the decades. Worse still, its permanent members have been directly involved in several of those conflicts, from Iraq to Ukraine and beyond. Today, the council stands paralysed to prevent genocide in Gaza. It faces a further test in responding to the Israel-Iran crisis.
It is thus unsurprising that global public opinion of the wider un is deteriorating. Having served the organisation at its highest levels, we understand these concerns. We know the un needs reform, and we know how difficult that can be. But its strongest critics are sometimes those who make both its effectiveness and its reform most difficult: its member states.
We are acutely aware of the un’s overreliance on powerful states, the consequences of which are devastating. This is just as much the case for sustainable development or human rights as it is for peace and security. The world must seize this moment of crisis to reorient the UN away from the preferences of a minority and towards better serving all states. The organisation does not have to be held hostage by a few countries—especially those that refuse to pay their dues or fail to show up.
In fact, there are many recent achievements showing that international agreement can be found with or without particular countries. Last month the World Health Assembly adopted a historic “Pandemic Agreement”, a feat of determination by governments committed to multilateral co-operation (which remains the majority). The World Intellectual Property Organisation has adopted two treaties over the past year after decades of obstructionism. A resolution paving the way towards a global treaty on crimes against humanity was finally adopted in November, despite repeated attempts at derailment by Russia. The Pact for the Future agreed by the UN General Assembly last September, which faced similar challenges, holds enormous potential for multilateral action on issues ranging from Ai governance to climate.
Perhaps most urgently, momentum has been building towards Security Council reform in recent years, with the Pact for the Future committing countries to its expansion—a process that must be led by the General Assembly, not the council itself. Successful expansion of the council in the 1960s shows that reform is possible.
In parallel, the UN secretariat needs to restore its critical role in mediating crises. Member states must support this role, rather than buying into a free-for-all where regional and global powers set the terms of political settlements. The stakes are high. A world war today could lead to the end of humanity, yet the states able to reduce nuclear risks are expanding their arsenals and eroding the taboo against nuclear use through the exchange of barely veiled threats.
We also believe that the next un secretary-general must be a woman. A continuing succession of men at the top is counterproductive to what the organisation is seeking to achieve. Sharing power and responsibility between men and women is crucial to a stable and united future. Alongside meaningful un reform, there is also widespread support for transforming the international financial architecture. Urgent consideration must be given to equitable global tax reform, the alleviation of crippling debt and new approaches to financing global public goods.
The case for an improved un is clear. But a rushed reform process that is driven by funding cuts rooted in ideological distaste for the principles of the un will not improve the organisation, or the world.
As the second secretary-general, Dag Hammarskjöld, said, the un “was not created in order to bring us to heaven, but in order to save us from hell”. It was born from a global yearning to counter destructive authoritarianism. It is unsurprising that in today’s world certain leaders want to see the un on its knees, and to shrug off what they see as the tedious constraints of the rule of law. For others, this is a moment that demands their moral strength and fibre. Without it, we risk a world of unchecked power, unprecedented conflict, repression, disease, famine and poverty—a world which would be unrecognisable even to Truman in 1945.■
Ban Ki-moon was secretary-general of the United Nations from 2007 to 2016. Helen Clark was prime minister of New Zealand from 1999 to 2008 and head of the United Nations Development Programme from 2009 to 2017. Both are members of The Elders, founded by Nelson Mandela in 2007
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment