As the United Nations celebrates its 80th anniversary this September, the organization finds itself at a critical juncture in addressing pressing global challenges. Inequality, conflict, ecological degradation, and increasing digital threats are rampant, underscoring the very problems the UN was established to combat.
The UN’s latest initiative, dubbed “UN80,” aims to enhance inclusivity and accountability within the multilateral system. However, the pressing question remains: can this initiative truly meet the needs of the 21st century? Will it be remembered as just another bureaucratic exercise or a genuine effort to renew the UN’s commitment to the people it serves?
For UN80 to be meaningful, three essential components must be prioritized.
First and foremost, reforms must place people at the center of decision-making, moving away from a purely spreadsheet-driven approach. The UN is currently facing significant financial challenges, with geopolitical tensions at an all-time high and member states falling behind on their dues—totaling billions in arrears. This has raised serious questions about the UN’s mandate and its ability to operate effectively.
Christelle Kalhoulé, Forus Chair and civil society leader in Burkina Faso, warns against downsizing the UN during these tumultuous times. “In a polycrisis world, shrinking the UN’s capacity is like cutting the fire brigade during wildfire season,” she states. “Reform cannot be about cutting corners; it must focus on providing the protection and solidarity that people desperately need.”
The UN80 Initiative represents one of the most extensive reform efforts in decades, encompassing three main tracks: the streamlining of services, the consolidation of IT and HR systems, and the review of outdated mandates. However, while these reforms appear promising on paper, the process has often felt opaque, with crucial documents leaking and staff unions raising concerns about transparency and consultation.
Moreover, the proposed integration of artificial intelligence as a means to identify redundancies and expedite resolutions poses risks. Without proper safeguards, there’s a danger that AI could automate cuts and perpetuate biases instead of fostering innovative, people-centered solutions. The focus has frequently shifted to financial concerns, with the United States alone owing $1.5 billion in dues while major donors are slashing official development assistance.
As Arjun Bhattarai, Executive Director of the NGO Federation of Nepal, notes, “Reform cannot equate to austerity. Budget cuts may make spreadsheets look neat in New York, but they leave communities in Kathmandu, Kampala, Khartoum, and Kyiv without essential support when they need it most.” A reform initiative that prioritizes management efficiencies over the reimagining of the UN’s role risks leaving the organization weaker at a time when robust international cooperation is essential.
The second pillar of effective reform is recognizing that, despite its limitations, multilateralism remains vital for global peace and cooperation. The true value of the UN lies not in its headquarters in New York or Geneva, but in the communities it serves. The organization was founded “for the people and by the people,” and its core mission must revolve around protecting and promoting sustainable, healthy lives for all.
The standard for reform should be clear: a transformed UN must actively work to reduce inequalities, ensure fair representation in its governance structures, deliver public goods with accountability, and provide timely protection for individuals and communities.
Moses Isooba, Executive Director of the Uganda National NGO Forum, emphasizes, “A reformed UN must stand closer to the people than to the corridors of power. Its success should not be measured by the length of its resolutions, but by the depth of hope it restores and the tangible changes it brings to communities worldwide.”
If UN80 devolves into a technocratic exercise focused on “doing less with less,” the result could be a diminished UN at a time when it is needed more than ever. Conversely, if it evolves into a justice-driven initiative that intertwines architecture and finance with a clear vision of equity and inclusion, it could invigorate the UN’s capacity as a leader in global cooperation.
As Justina Kaluinaite, a policy and advocacy expert at the Lithuanian NGDO Platform, asserts, “The UN will survive another 80 years only if it learns to listen. True reform is not about doing more with less; it’s about doing better for those who have been marginalized.”
Finally, leaders gathering in New York should subject every reform proposal to three critical tests:
1. **The Inequality Question:** Does this reform measurably close the gaps in protection and benefits based on income, gender, geography, or status?
2. **The Localisation Question:** Does it bring funding, decision-making, and accountability closer to the communities it aims to assist, complete with transparent targets and timelines?
3. **The Rights Question:** Does it enhance, rather than diminish, protections for human rights, gender equality, and social justice?
As Kalhoulé poignantly puts it, “The measure of UN80 should not be how much paper it saves, but how many lives it protects. Future generations will not ask whether the UN balanced its budget in 2025; they will want to know if it stood with the people.”
If this moment is embraced, the UN can emerge more robust, inclusive, and equipped for justice-driven renewal in multilateralism. However, if not, UN80 could be remembered as a retreat from the challenges that lie ahead.
To truly matter, UN80 must prioritize crisis prevention, deliver for people and the planet, amplify the voices of underrepresented communities, safeguard civil society, and ensure that funding reaches those on the front lines. The ultimate measure of success will not be an orderly organizational structure, but the extent to which lives are saved, trust is rebuilt, and the UN demonstrates its ability to rise to the occasion in this complex 21st-century landscape.
