Multilateralism and UN reform
The UN80 Initiative is a constructive start. But it is only a start. Moving positions on a budget sheet may deliver savings. Merging or renaming bodies may reduce duplication. Streamlining structures may improve efficiency. These steps are important and often necessary for good housekeeping, but they are not enough; we need to dig deeper to address the problems beneath the superstructure, because the United Nations’ reform challenges are chronic and fundamental. On 24 November 1949, four years after the founding of the United Nations, this Assembly adopted resolution 310 (IV), entitled “Problem of the Proliferation and Overlapping of the Programmes of the United Nations and of the Specialized Agencies”. It urged Member States “to refrain from initiating new projects other than those which are urgently required and which can be effectively carried out”. Yet we have not paid sufficient attention to our own decision. We have since created thousands of mandates, of which 4,000 are still active, irrespective of whether they were required or could be effectively carried out. We cannot continue treating a chronic ailment with temporary painkillers when what we need is a deeper diagnosis and a more profound plan for transformation, even if that plan proves painful. And here I must be equally candid: this will happen only if Member States take charge. Time and again, we say that United Nations reforms must be Member State-led. But too often, Member States fail to take the wheel. Passive ownership is not enough. If we do not claim proactive ownership of this place, we cannot expect it to heal. So let us engage. Let us take charge, fix our own house, respect sovereignty of Member States, and together deliver the transformation we need. (BRIEF PAUSE) As we decide what must change, we must also recognize what already works. Again and again, Member States tell us that the United Nations works well at the country level, emergency situations, and in keeping and building peace. We should build on that success. We should strengthen the United Nations’ country-level work and draw increasingly on local capacity, including qualified national institutions and individuals. We should ensure that all activities at country level, from development support to peacekeeping, are properly integrated and produce the highest synergy. We should ensure avoidance of turf battles among different parts of the UN, and exercise care to select resident coordinators that are fit to lead the teams. We want to have full value for money. The Organization’s financial viability is also a chronic concern. We must ensure that it receives sufficient resources on a sustained basis and that all countries pay their dues on time and without conditions. We must also recognize that dues to the United Nations come from hardworking people around the world. Every penny must therefore be properly accounted for. Every penny must be invested to achieve impact on the ground for the people we serve. (BRIEF PAUSE) The role of the Member States, supported by the Secretariat is essential to delivering our work, but not sufficient. This brings me to my third point: building a more open and inclusive United Nations. We know that the United Nations of today, and the world it serves, are profoundly different from those of 1945. Nowhere is the pace of change more evident today than in artificial intelligence.