The United Nations was not founded to be comfortable; it was founded to be necessary. Created in the aftermath of catastrophe, its purpose was clear: to maintain international peace and security, to uphold international law, to defend human rights and to promote human dignity and development.

Dag Hammarskjöld, who understood that the Secretary-General was not merely a secretary to governments, but a servant of the Charter and, ultimately, of the peoples of the world.

As member states consider the appointment of the next Secretary-General, they face a decision that will shape not only the future of the United Nations, but also its credibility. The world today does not suffer from a surplus of institutions; it suffers from a shortage of trust in them.

The next Secretary-General must therefore be more than a careful manager of bureaucracy. The world needs a leader with vision, independence and integrity — a leader willing to uphold the Charter even when doing so is inconvenient to powerful member states.

Too often, the selection process produces a candidate who is acceptable to everyone precisely because they are unlikely to seriously challenge anyone. This may be politically expedient, but it is strategically short-sighted. An overly cautious Secretary-General may preserve short-term diplomatic comfort while presiding over long-term institutional decline.

The United Nations does not need a figure who simply reflects the balance of power within the Security Council; it needs a figure who reflects the principles of the Charter.

The next Secretary-General must be bold enough to articulate a clear vision for what the United Nations is for in the twenty-first century. That vision must be rooted in the organization’s founding objectives: preventing conflict, strengthening respect for international law, protecting human rights and promoting conditions under which peace is possible. These goals require not only administrative competence, but political courage and moral clarity.

Equally important, the next Secretary-General must be strong enough to maintain independence from the influence of any single member state or group of states. The United Nations does not exist to legitimize the actions of the powerful; it exists to ensure that power operates within rules.

The Secretary-General cannot fulfill this role if the office is perceived as operating at the beck and call of a few influential capitals. Independence is not a luxury in this role; it is the source of its authority.

With independence must come integrity. The United Nations possesses little in the way of traditional power: it does not command armies, it does not control vast financial resources and it cannot compel states to act. Its greatest asset is legitimacy — the belief that it stands for something larger than the interests of individual nations.

That legitimacy depends heavily on the personal credibility of the Secretary-General. Ethical leadership, transparency, accountability and consistency must once again become the defining characteristics of the office.

In this regard, the world would do well to remember Dag Hammarskjöld, who understood that the Secretary-General was not merely a secretary to governments, but a servant of the Charter and, ultimately, of the peoples of the world. He demonstrated that quiet diplomacy and moral courage are not opposites; they are partners.

He showed that the authority of the Secretary-General does not come from military or economic power, but from independence, integrity and a willingness to act when action is required.

Much attention is often given to the identity of the next Secretary-General — nationality, region, and increasingly gender. These questions are politically understandable, but they are not the most important questions. The defining question is not where the Secretary-General comes from, but what the Secretary-General stands for.

The United Nations is often described as an organization of states. But states exist to serve people, not the other way around. If that principle is true at the national level, it must also be true at the international level. The United Nations, therefore, does not ultimately belong to governments. It belongs to the peoples in whose name its Charter was written. Member states do not own the United Nations; they are trustees of it. And trustees are not meant to serve themselves, but those on whose behalf they hold responsibility.

This understanding should guide the selection of the next Secretary-General. The position requires someone who understands that the office is not merely administrative, but custodial — custodial of the Charter, of international law and of the trust that the world’s peoples place, however imperfectly, in the United Nations.

The selection process itself, however, raises a final and somewhat uncomfortable question. The Secretary-General is often described as the world’s top diplomat, and yet the world’s people have no direct voice in choosing this person.

The decision rests, as everyone knows, with a small number of states possessing veto power. This may be politically realistic, but it is increasingly difficult to explain to a global public that is more educated, more connected and more aware than at any time in history.

Perhaps, then, one day the world might experiment with something new — global consultations, or even worldwide elections — allowing the peoples of the world to express their preference for who should occupy this uniquely global office.

It is a slightly amusing idea, perhaps even an unrealistic one for now, but it contains a serious point: if the United Nations truly begins with “We the Peoples,” then their voice should be heard more clearly in choosing its leader.

Until that day comes, the responsibility rests with member states. They must choose not the safest candidate, not the most convenient candidate and not the candidate least likely to upset powerful governments. They must choose the candidate most likely to uphold the Charter, speak with independence, act with courage and restore integrity to the office.

The world does not need a careful manager.
The world needs a courageous Secretary-General.

Naïma Abdellaoui, UNOG – UNison Staff Representative, International Civil Servant since 2004.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The principles of the UN Charter are the foundation of the Organization’s work—guiding its mission to promote peace, development, and human rights for all. Credit: UN Photo/Amanda Voisard

By Naïma Abdellaoui
GENEVA, Jul 3 2025 (IPS)

Recent proposals to relocate UN operations to lower-cost duty stations ignore demonstrable economic patterns. Empirical evidence suggests that establishing UN hubs often triggers localized inflation, negating projected savings.

Case Study: UN Presence in Nairobi
While city-wide inflation is driven by national policies, population growth, infrastructure deficits and global shocks, the UN significantly increased rents and land prices in affluent Nairobi neighborhoods, creating enclaves of hyper-inflation for premium goods and services.

While most Nairobians struggle with costs tied to local realities, elites near UN hubs face Paris-level prices. UN operations inherently stimulate demand for premium housing, security, and bilingual services. Projected savings rarely materialize once market adjustments occur.

The Liquidity Crisis: Self-Inflicted and Avoidable
The Secretary-General’s 2023 definitive shift from biennial to annual budgets—contrary to historical practice—exacerbated cash-flow vulnerabilities.

This restructuring ignored the U.S. payment pattern (80% of contributions arrive in Q4), transforming manageable delays into systemic crises.

Result:
– Premature austerity measures (20% staff cuts) targeting high-experience personnel.
– Erosion of institutional capacity in critical areas (peacekeeping, humanitarian law).

Underutilized Charter Provisions: Article 6 and Article 19
The UN Charter provides robust tools to address fiscal noncompliance and political obstruction:

1. Article 19 (Voting Suspension):
Permits revocation of voting rights for members exceeding two years of arrears. This was applied 13 times (e.g., Libya 2021). Yet chronic non- or late-payers (notably the U.S., owing $1.3B) face no enforcement. (Article 19 A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. (…))

2. Article 6 (Expulsion):
Allows expulsion of states “persistently violating” Charter principles. Historically unused despite patterns of withholding funds to exert political pressure. (Article 6 A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council).

Alternative Reform Pathways
Rather than relocating staff or dismantling entities, the UN could:

A. Leverage Geopolitical Counterweights
– Relocate HQ functions to Geneva as a deterrent against contribution withholding.
– Impact: New York stands to lose $3.3B/year in economic activity when the US assessed contribution amounts to only $1.3B/year.
B. Enforce Financial Accountability
– Convert arrears into sovereign debt under international law.
– Suspend veto rights for chronic non-payers (per Article 19).
C. Preserve Institutional Integrity
– Revert to biennial budgets to accommodate payment cycles and patterns.
– Include staff unions in reform design (e.g., UN80 Task Force).

The UN80 Paradox: Efficiency vs. Institutional Amnesia

Accelerated consolidation without stakeholder consultation risks:
– Operational Fragility: Loss of specialized expertise (e.g., conflict mediation, logistics).
– Legacy Erosion: Undermining 80 years of norms (human rights, humanitarian law).

Conclusion: A Call for Charter-Compliant Solutions

The UN’s viability hinges on using its existing legal tools—not on self-imposed austerity.
Member states (particularly G77+China and BRICS) could:

1. Demand enforcement of Article 19 against non-paying states.
2. Propose a GA Resolution 80/… (invoking Article 6) for states obstructing multilateralism.
3. Commission an independent audit of relocation cost assumptions.

The path to reform lies not in fragmenting the UN’s foundations, but in reclaiming the courage of its Charter.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

By Naïma Abdellaoui
GENEVA, Jun 27 2025 (IPS)

In an era defined by the gig economy and pervasive job insecurity, advocating for permanent contracts within the United Nations might seem anachronistic, even counterintuitive.

Yet, clinging to a culture of short-term, precarious contracts is not just detrimental to staff well-being; it’s a strategic and financial misstep that undermines the UN’s core mission.

Simultaneously, while internal restructuring under the banner of “UN 2.0” or “UN80” absorbs significant energy, the world burns with geopolitical fires demanding urgent, credible multilateral action. It’s time to re-focus: prioritize quality hires with stability AND make multilateralism genuinely effective, starting where it matters most – preventing mass atrocities.

The False Economy of Job Insecurity

The argument for limiting permanent contracts often hinges on perceived flexibility and cost savings. However, the reality is starkly different:

1. The High Cost of Turnover: Constantly recruiting, onboarding, and training staff for short-term roles is immensely expensive. Studies consistently show replacing an employee can cost 50-200% of their annual salary. For complex UN roles requiring deep institutional knowledge, context-specific understanding, and intricate diplomatic networks, these costs are amplified exponentially. Permanent staff represent a long-term investment whose value compounds over time.

2. Loss of Institutional Memory & Expertise: The UN tackles the world’s most complex challenges – climate change, pandemics, conflict resolution. Success requires deep historical understanding, nuanced relationships, and specialized expertise. A revolving door of staff erodes this vital institutional memory. Permanent contracts foster the accumulation and retention of irreplaceable knowledge critical for navigating protracted crises.

3. Diminished Loyalty & Engagement: Job insecurity breeds anxiety and disengagement. Staff on short-term contracts, constantly worried about renewal, are less likely to invest fully in long-term projects, challenge inefficient practices, or build the deep cross-departmental collaborations essential for UN effectiveness. Permanent status fosters commitment, psychological safety, and the courage to speak truth to power – vital assets for any organization, especially this one.

4. Quality Over Contract Length: The focus should shift decisively from “how long”someone is hired to “how well” they are selected and perform. Rigorous recruitment processes aimed at securing the best talent, coupled with robust performance management and accountability mechanisms, are the true guarantors of efficiency and effectiveness.

Permanent contracts for highly qualified, competitively selected, high-performing staff provide the stability needed for excellence, not complacency. It’s penny-wise and pound-foolish to sacrifice long-term capability for illusory short-term budget flexibility.

UN80 Reforms: A Distraction from Existential Challenges?

While streamlining processes and modernizing tools under initiatives like UN80 has merit, it risks becoming a consuming internal exercise that diverts attention from the UN’s fundamental crisis: the erosion of effective multilateralism in the face of escalating global turmoil.

The world confronts a resurgence of conflict, climate catastrophe accelerating faster than responses, democratic backsliding, and a fragmenting international order. Yet, the UN Security Council, the body charged with maintaining peace and security, remains paralyzed by the very tool meant to ensure great power buy-in: the veto.

The ghost of the League of Nations haunts us – an institution fatally weakened by its inability to act decisively against aggression because powerful members could simply block consensus.

Reform Must Prioritize Action, Especially Against Genocide

True UN reform cannot be confined to internal restructuring. It must courageously address the structural flaws that prevent the organization from fulfilling its primary mandate:

1. Veto Restraint on Atrocity Crimes: The most urgent starting point is suspending the use of the veto in Security Council resolutions aimed at preventing or stopping genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.

When a permanent member wields its veto to shield perpetrators of these most heinous crimes, it betrays the UN’s foundational purpose and renders collective security a mockery. This specific, targeted reform is not about abolishing the veto wholesale but about preventing its most morally indefensible application. It is a litmus test for the credibility of UN reform.

2. Effectiveness Over Bureaucracy: Reforms must demonstrably enhance the UN’s ability to deliver tangible results on the ground – mediating conflicts effectively, delivering humanitarian aid unhindered, holding human rights abusers accountable, and implementing climate agreements with urgency. This requires empowering agencies, improving coordination, and ensuring mandates are matched with resources and political backing.

3. Reinvigorating Multilateralism: The UN must become a platform that fosters genuine dialogue and compromise, not just a stage for grandstanding. Reform should seek ways to better integrate emerging powers, strengthen the role of the General Assembly where feasible, and rebuild trust among member states around shared principles of the Charter.

Conclusion

Advocating for permanent contracts is not a retreat into comfort; it’s a strategic investment in the UN’s human capital – the bedrock of its effectiveness. It fosters the expertise, loyalty, and long-term perspective needed to tackle generational challenges.

Simultaneously, obsessing over internal restructuring while the mechanisms for global peace and security remain fundamentally broken is a dangerous distraction.

The UN was born from the ashes of catastrophic failure. Its reformers must have the courage to confront the structural impediments – including the unchecked veto enabling atrocity and the erosion of staff stability – that threaten to lead it down the same path.

Let’s prioritize permanent expertise and permanent purpose. The world, beset by crisis, demands nothing less than a United Nations capable of fulfilling its promise.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt: