UN Confronts Crisis of Trust, Legitimacy and Relevance

Mahmoud Daifallah Mahmoud Hmoud of Jordan, newly elected to serve as a judge on the International Court of Justice (ICJ). (File photo)

In 1945, with cities in ruins and hope stretched thin, 50 nations gathered in San Francisco to reach for a better world. From the ashes of fascism, genocide, and world war, they forged a charter — a binding declaration that peace, justice, and human dignity must be protected through international cooperation.

The United Nations was born not from idealism, but necessity. It was designed to prevent collapse.

Now, nearly 80 years later, the UN faces a different kind of crisis — a slow erosion of trust, legitimacy, and effectiveness. Yet, the sense of urgency that once birthed the UN is absent from the reforms meant to preserve it.

Last week, Secretary-General António Guterres launched the UN80 Initiative — a promise to streamline, restructure, and modernize the institution. The speech was technically sound. It named real problems: fragmentation, inefficiency, and fiscal strain.

But it did not do what this moment demands. Reform without purpose is choreography, not change. More dangerously, it may reinforce the very power asymmetries it claims to address.

I watched the speech not just as a professional evaluator or former advisor, but as someone who has walked this system — from post-conflict zones to policy tables — for over three decades. I’ve seen the courage of communities and the inertia of agencies. And I know when reform is performance. UN80, as currently framed, risks becoming exactly that.

What Was Said

The Secretary-General laid out three workstreams:

He described this as a system-wide process, not confined to the Secretariat, and aimed at building a more nimble, coordinated, and responsive UN. The initiative is framed as a response to geopolitical tensions, technological change, rising conflict, and shrinking resources.

These are real problems. The system is under stress. But while the administrative diagnosis is clear, the political and strategic roadmap remains vague.

Structure cannot substitute for strategy. Operational tweaks cannot resolve foundational incoherence. Reform must begin with clarity about what the UN is meant to be — and for whom it is accountable.

What Was Not Said: Strategic Purpose

The most important question — reform for what? — remains unanswered.

What is the United Nations for in the 21st century? Is it a humanitarian responder? A normative engine? A technical platform? A peace broker? A defender of rights?

The UN was never meant to be a donor-driven delivery contractor. It was designed to hold the line against war, inequality, and tyranny. Yet, it has slowly morphed into a service bureaucracy, dependent on earmarked funds, political favour, and private partnerships.

Until the UN reclaims its strategic purpose, structural reform will only mask decay.

Who Holds the Power?

Power in the UN system has shifted — not democratically, but informally:

• The P5 still hold veto power over global peace and security;
• The G7 and G20 shape global development from outside ECOSOC;
• Vertical funds (e.g., GCF, GEF, CIFs) operate in parallel, accountable more to boards than global norms;
• Major donors define agendas through earmarks;
• Key leadership posts are quietly traded by geopolitical blocs.

UN80 is silent on this. But no reform is meaningful without confronting where power actually lives.

The Mirage of Clustering

I remember sitting in a government office in a post-conflict country, trying to explain why three UN agencies had arrived to offer nearly identical support for disaster risk planning. The local official — exhausted but polite — leaned back and asked, “Is the UN not one family? Why do we get five cousins and no parent?”

This is the illusion clustering risks reinforcing. Merging agencies under thematic umbrellas implies that dysfunction can be solved by coordination and efficiency. But those who work in the field know: coordination without clarity, and structure without trust, rarely delivers.

Clustering is not inherently bad. But it is not a shortcut to legitimacy.

Efficiency is not coherence. Coherence is not ownership. You cannot engineer trust through organigrams. You earn it through transparency, participation, and shared accountability.

Many staff are not resisting change — they’re resisting erasure. Clustering threatens not only jobs, but identities and mandates. It risks replacing technical expertise with managerial simplicity.

True reform should begin from the bottom up — with countries and people defining what they need from the UN. Clustering should emerge from that dialogue, not replace it.

The Case of UN DESA

UN DESA, originally created to support ECOSOC, now duplicates the work of UNDP, UNCTAD, and others — often without field engagement or accountability.

DESA illustrates what happens when reform avoids politics: roles blur, duplication grows, and trust erodes.

Country Ownership: The Loudest Silence

UN80 risks becoming an elite project shaped by donors and technocrats. Meanwhile, the majority of Member States — especially those still grappling with colonisation, debt, and climate injustice — are left out of the room.

That is not multilateralism. That is managed decline.

Where were the voices of the Global South, SIDS, LDCs, post-conflict governments, and frontline communities? Reform cannot be legitimate unless it is co-created with those it will most affect.

The Funding Problem

Guterres acknowledged financial stress — but sidestepped the reality:

• UN financing is largely non-core, unpredictable, and donor-controlled;
• Agencies compete for funding rather than coordinate for impact;
• Global funds hold more leverage than ECOSOC and face less accountability.

Real reform would propose a new multilateral funding compact — one that aligns with national priorities, funds coordination as a global public good, and dismantles structural dependency.

Do We Need Another War to Reform the UN?

We’re not just experiencing crisis fatigue. We’re witnessing a darker shift — the resurgence of authoritarianism, xenophobia, and surveillance masked as security.

Civic space is shrinking. International norms are being dismissed. Fear is being weaponised. The ghosts of fascism are no longer metaphorical — they are detention centres, laws, and algorithms.

The UN was created to prevent this. But unless it reclaims its moral clarity and legitimacy, it will become a bystander to its own irrelevance.

Reform for What?

Not for balance sheets.
Not for organigrams.

Reform for justice. Reform for relevance. Reform for a world that cannot wait.

Until we define its purpose, no amount of restructuring will restore credibility.

Final Thoughts

UN80, as currently framed, does not challenge the logic that broke the system. It risks becoming another reform that leaves power untouched.

If we want more than managerialism — if we want meaning — we must:

• Declare the UN’s core function in the 21st century;
• End political appointments that corrode leadership integrity;
• Integrate vertical funds under multilateral coordination;
• Restore ECOSOC as the centre of economic governance;
• And above all, centre those whom the system was created to serve.

The Charter was a promise. UN80 is a test.

Let us stop pretending reform is neutral. Let us confront the politics, follow the money, and name what we owe the future.

Let us be braver than the moment expects.

Stephanie Hodge is an international evaluator and former UN advisor who has worked across 140 countries. She writes on governance, multilateral reform, and climate equity.