To say the UN is at breaking point may be an overstatement, but there is no denying that only sustained and transformative reform can secure its future. Without such reform, its strengths will dissipate, and its weaknesses will reach new depths.

Given its tortuous history, the complexity of its current arrangements and the vastness of its brief, there is no magic wand which can set the UN on a more promising path.

Transformation requires a multifaceted, but coherent, strategy that aligns with the UN’s global mission as set out in its charter, which is to advance peace and security, affirm human rights, eradicate poverty and exclusion, and maintain the health of the planet’s ecosystems.

The strategy must consider the preferences of its member states, but it must also reflect the aspirations of the world’s peoples, including the needs of nations and communities poorly served by failed or failing states.

Many governments are mired in conflict, corruption or incompetence. Sudan and Myanmar are glaring examples, but several Western governments are not far behind..

Lately, the UN system has generated two initiatives which could conceivably contribute to such a strategy. The Pact for the Future was adopted at the UN’s Summit of the Future last September and the UN80 Initiative was launched by the UN secretary-general in March this year.

The Pact for the Future is intended to set in stone a clear commitment by member countries to the UN and its charter, the international system and international law.

The Pact outlines a series of more specific commitments covering sustainable development and financing, peace and security, digital co-operation, youth and future generations and global governance.

It brings together and reaffirms in suitably forceful language many of the positive principles and objectives relevant to each of these areas, which successive UN-sponsored gatherings, conferences and meetings have enunciated, often more than once.

The Pact has added value in that it commits all governments to give effect to these objectives and principles. What is lacking is any degree of specificity as to which governments need to do what, when, how and by when.

The Summit does provide for governments to report and for future meetings to review progress. However, if past practice is any guide, most governments are likely to do far less than expected, and cover up inadequate performance whether by inflated reporting or by reference to extenuating circumstances.

As for the UN80 Initiative, it is in the main an exercise in administrative streamlining. It seeks to remedy an unprecedented funding shortfall by closing structures deemed to be redundant, reducing staff and relocating offices from New York to Nairobi.

The Initiative also provides for a comprehensive review of some 4000 resolutions and related documents mandating numerous UN projects and activities. The aim is to reduce duplication and remodel delivery. Lastly, the Initiative plans to conduct a strategic review of deeper, more structural changes and program realignment.

These proposed changes may achieve efficiency gains and better project quality, but they are just as likely to close down or disrupt useful programs, and they will not address the root causes of the UN’s current difficulties.

The UN cannot adequately respond to today’s critical challenges when wealthy and powerful states repeatedly obstruct timely and effective action.

The excessive use of the veto power in the Security Council is one expression of this underlying problem. Another is the refusal to adequately fund the UN’s operations. In 2023, the UN system’s total revenue stood at US$67.6 billion, a mere 2.8% of total global military spending ( US$2443 billion).

Democratising global governance holds the key to any possible solution. The existing UN system can and should be the point of departure.

It may be time to put on the table a program of relatively radical, yet by no means unimaginable, reform.

The proposed restructuring would aim to:

• Place limits on the dominance of major centres of power and wealth within global multilateral institutions;
• Enable all member states to play a part in shaping the priorities and functioning of the UN system;
• Endow the UN with the authority and capacity to co-ordinate the work of all global multilateral institutions in the economic, environmental as well as the security domain; and
• Open up the multilateral system to the voices and insights of non-state actors and make it more responsive to an emerging global consciousness and developing notions of global citizenship.

The most immediate and easily achievable goal is to revitalise the General Assembly. This chamber should set, and annually review, policy directions for the transformational changes needed in four key areas: global security, world economy, human rights and environment.

Where military conflicts pose a major threat to peace, security and human rights, and where use of the veto power prevents the Security Council from discharging its responsibility, the General Assembly should consider invoking the Uniting for Peace resolution.

In line with this approach, earlier this month 45 UN human rights experts in response to the unfolding catastrophe in Gaza called on the General Assembly, among other things, to (i) recommend a peace operation, (ii) demand that all crossings into Gaza be opened under UN supervision, and (iii) suspend humanitarian mechanisms that have proved dangerous or ineffective.

As for the Security Council, it has proved unable to adapt to changing geopolitical circumstances, let alone to more holistic notions of human security. A phased approach to elimination of the veto power is urgently needed.

First, the permanent membership should be widened to include emerging centres of power and influence in the Global South, notably India, Brazil and South Africa. Security Council membership could also be enlarged with more countries joining on a two-year rotational basis.

Secondly, even while the veto power is retained, limitations can be placed on the frequency of its use, and the issues on which it is exercised.

Thirdly, the Security Council should adopt a more systematic approach to the management of global security. To this end it could hold a biennial summit meeting which reviews recent trends and maps out future strategies, taking account of guidelines set by the General Assembly and the representations of global civil society.

Another initiative is worth considering. The UN cannot confine itself to a state-centric view of the world. It must integrate the more comprehensive notion of human security into all aspects of its functioning.

To this end, a Consultative Assembly could be established as a third chamber that brings together a wide range of non-state actors noted for their expertise, legitimacy and extensive public support. Such an assembly, possibly with a membership of 1000, would function as a house of review.

The Consultative Assembly would not have legislative powers, but it would carefully monitor the actions of the General Assembly and Security Council. It would be empowered to receive reports from, seek information from, and offer advice to, all UN organs and agencies. All its deliberations and decisions would be publicly accessible.

The proposals advanced here are purely illustrative. Many others need to be carefully considered. We need to create spaces where global citizenship can flourish, where people of diverse backgrounds come together to share energies, insights and resources in what is likely to prove a long, challenging but unavoidable journey.

Read part 1 of this three-part series.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.