UN reform should be an ongoing dynamic process and not simply a response to regular US threats to withhold funding. It must be overseen by a specialized unit reporting to the Secretary-General and which should have the power to review the organizational structure, responsibilities, work methods and output of any unit in the Organization or any unit affiliated to with it and make recommendations. Credit: United Nations
By Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, May 22 2025 – The UN is going through another exercise in reforming itself under immense pressure from the US, its main funder. This time US President Donald Trump has expressed himself much more forcefully and seems determined to pare down US contributions and demand further curtailing of UN expenses, while some other donors, reluctant to show their own hands, are quietly cheering on the US.
To emphasise that it means business, and to the cheers of its cabal of domestic supporters, the US has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and the World Health Organization (WHO).
In addition, it has pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords. On previous occasions, the US had also withheld its contributions forcing then Secretaries-General, Kofi Annan and Ban ki-Moon to undertake reform exercises. That the US should now adopt a more ruthless approach to the UN after having been a catalytic force in its creation, is a sad commentary on the changes that have impacted on the original idealism.
It would seem that the UN goes through the ritual of trying to reform itself every time the US withholds funding, usually when the Republicans assume power in Washington DC. At the time, many senior UN staffers cynically believed that the US would come up with the funds that it owed sooner or later and treated the reform ritual with supercilious indifference. (This was what I experienced during my time at the UN).
This time round, the UN reform exercise may have to be more meaningful if the Trump Administration is to refrain from going through with its threats to curtail funding. In any, event, many would agree that the UN needs reform, both within the organisation as well as in its political bodies.
Reassuringly and to the relief of many, the US appears to be still committed to the UN. The Acting Permanent Representative of the US to the UN, Dorothy Shea has said, “The United Nations remains essential to resolving complex international challenges, first among them maintaining international peace and security, and addressing the causes of armed conflict. The UN must return to its principal purpose and the Secretary-General is uniquely positioned as the Chief Administrative Officer to lead this endeavor.”
At a time when many governments are facing budget reductions and reprioritization, the United Nations must refocus on effective delivery of its core purposes. This includes better delivery where it matters most: at the country-level”. It would seem that the US commitment to the UN remains positive despite worries to the contrary articulated by some. However, the message of the Acting PR is abundantly clear — the UN must re-focus on its key goals.
One of the irksome issues to address is the plethora of activities for which the UN has assumed responsibility. Over the years, the Organization has taken upon tasks, mostly at the behest of Member States, that may fall broadly within its mandate, but which are not necessarily consistent with its core functions.
Although many such tasks could be brought within the broad scope of its Charter mandated responsibilities, critics would argue that they do not fall within its core mandates. The funding in many cases came from the core budget, and the support structure is provided by the Organization, and some activities may even be funded by special contributions from Member States.
This has enabled certain Member States to facilitate UN activities which they themselves have funded but, in most likelihood, which respond to the agenda of their own domestic pressure groups. Human Rights and the Environment, especially climate change, likely fall into this category.
Over the years, the UN has thus taken on the role of responding to the domestic pressures of individual states, especially the rich states, leaving doubts in the minds of some as to whether these functions really fall within the core responsibilities of the Organization.
Added to the problem is the persistent shortfall of funds to realise the range of functions now being undertaken by the Organisation. By April 30, 2025, unpaid “assessments” (money owed to the UN by individual countries) stood at US$2.4 billion, with the US owing $1.5 billion, China around $600 million, and Russia more than $70 million.
On top of that, the peacekeeping budget was $2.7 billion in arrears. In 2024, 41 countries did not pay their mandated contributions. While non payers could lose their right to vote, this has never proved an adequate deterrent to those intent on delaying their dues.
In March 2025, UN Secretary-General António Guterres launched “UN80”, a review that seeks to make sure the institution continues to be fit-for-purpose as it looks towards a financially straightened future. The threatened funding cuts by the US, has helped to focus the attention of the Organization.
This exercise of the Secretary-General, reminiscent of the experience of both previous Secretaries-General, Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon, who also launched similar exercises but which petered out in time as much of the organization returned to the comfort zone of existing work methods and practices. Some things changed but not much.
UN reform, to be convincing, should be an ongoing process and not simply a response to US threats to withhold funding. The Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (DMSPC) and the UNGA Fifth Committee perform useful functions in this respect, but the UNGA 5TH Committee is subject to too much pressure from Member States.
Managers must not only be technically competent but also be modern executives who believe in continuing change, upskilling and upgrading. Training to upgrade skills and the commitment of staff to the core goals of the organization should be a regular feature. Those appointed to the highest levels by the Secretary-General, must possess superior managerial skills, especially those presented for appointment by influential states.
The organization must adapt to changing circumstances, embrace modern work methods and attitudes, seek to produce the best with available resources, and, very importantly, be committed to producing value for money. The world must feel that the world organization is producing results commensurate with what the international community is spending on it and, especially its staff.
Many staff have resigned to marking time in NY or Geneva while not producing much of value for the organization or the international community.
UN 80 has identified areas that could be improved immediately. But many of these proposals could run into staff resistance. For example, it recognized outdated working methods leading to inefficiencies within the organization as a key problem, while intergovernmental meetings are not making use of modern tools and technologies.
These were problems identified even during the tenures of Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon. A complex range of solutions were implemented. UN staff are on better than average benefits packages. Those considered redundant were encouraged to take a golden handshake and leave. Staff training was a priority.
Staff assessment methods were modernized. I remember the training and team building sessions we attended at Glen Cove with specialized external trainers. Automation happened quickly. Kofi Annan initiated the award of a UN 21 Pin to superior performers in management. (I was one of the early awardees of the Pin). But the initiative petered out largely because many of the senior political appointees who came from outside the organization could not relate to the innovations.
One solution to this would be to require nominees for such appointments possess superior management experience. Better still, countries that make such nominations, provide the secretariat with multiple names. The leadership of a unit or a division plays a crucial role in making the unit dynamic and productive.
It is to be remembered many managers who originated in developing countries, such as India and China, now lead cutting edge corporations and occupy senior government positions in the West, especially in the US. These changes, properly implemented, would very likely improve delivery.
Without doubt, UN meetings can be organised differently. All meetings need not take place in New York or Geneva with the participation of delegations from capitals. These meetings are expensive to organise, costly to the participants and unlikely to have the best representatives from poorer countries due to the costs involved.
If participation could be arranged from capitals, using modern technology which is now freely available, results would most likely be better. Where in the rare case that a country cannot organise such distant participation using modern technology, the UN office in the capital could assist in providing the necessary facilities.
Some countries might consider this a cost-effective option even for meetings of the UN Committees and even the UNGA. (This was tried out during the Covid lock downs).
The UN has been asked to consider moving some of its offices to more cost-effective locations. Nairobi already hosts, inter alia, UNEP, and UN Habitat and numerous environment related conferences. It would also make sense to bring together all UN ocean related offices under one roof in Jamica where the Commission on the Continental Shelf is located.
The use of NY for ocean related offices and meetings seems incongruous given that the US is not even a party to the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC). A rigorous rationalisation of LOSC activities and moving them to Jamaica or some other similarly cost-effective location would seem desirable.
Given the close connection between the oceans and climate change, we could even consider moving all LOS activities to Bonn where the Climate Change secretariat is located. In addition to the cost advantages, access to cutting edge academic and dedicated research institutions in Europe would be an added advantage to both. The two institutions could feed from each other and thrive in a supportive environment. Moving UNDP and UNICEF out of NY should also be considered.
Over-lapping agendas of units such as between ECOSOC and its functional commissions and expert bodies, and those of the General Assembly and its Second and Third Committees, leading to duplication of efforts should be subjected to a rationalization review. Their own managerial bodies should undertake such reviews in the first instance.
A serious review must be undertaken of whether all those Under-Secretaries-General (USG), Assistant Secretaries-General (ASG) and Directors (D) are required. Many positions could be terminated, others consolidated. In implementing the reform, rigor must be exercised.
Otherwise, the current reform is also likely to go the same way as the previous ones.
IPS UN Bureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);
Excerpt:
Dr Palitha Kohona is former Head, UN Treaties, a one-time Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN & until recently, Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China.