I Know the U.N. Inside and Out, and the World Still Needs It

The United Nations is still the unique path for humanity to address common problems and conflicts in a cooperative manner, rather than to face an increasingly dangerous and chaotic world.

This piece was originally published by PassBlue, a women-led nonprofit newsroom that covers the U.N. and global women’s rights.

I have been absent from the United Nations scene since before the pandemic, in 2020, but my interest in the organization has not waned. I still try and keep up with the rapidly changing context in global affairs and the role that the U.N. has played and continues to play.

I spent a good part of my professional career with the U.N., looking at it first as a national civil servant in my own government (as head of the Planning Office of Guatemala), then as an international civil servant for 23 years with the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, and an additional 11 years (in two separate postings) as the permanent representative of Guatemala to the U.N. in New York City.

I thus had the privilege of living inside the Secretariat as a staff member, then participating in decision-making at the intergovernmental level as a representative of a member state. The accent of my work in the Secretariat was focused on development; my work as a representative of a member state was on both development and fostering peacekeeping and peace-building.

I was witness to the indispensable work of the U.N. in a great diversity of topics and settings, ranging from humanitarian aid, promoting human rights, development, fostering peace, international law and so much more. Truly, the organization has played an irreplaceable role, and the world has greatly benefited from its existence, despite its possible shortcomings in efficiency and effectiveness.

But now, as we approach the 80th General Assembly, I am thoroughly alarmed at the consequences that the shifting international order can have on the U.N.

First, in 2014 a member state—not any state, but a permanent member of the Security Council, Russia—brazenly violated one of the cardinal obligations of the U.N. Charter by invading another sovereign state, threatening its territorial integrity.

Second, the dramatic changes that have taken place in the last few years in the international order have altered the global context so much that the traditional structure—designed for what basically was a unipolar world—now need to be adapted to a multipolar world. The latter is occurring as many countries are leaning increasingly on populist-nationalist strategies (as exemplified by “America first”), coupled with an underlying suspicion of international cooperation in general and multilateral institutions in particular.

All of this is happening when global challenges such as climate change call for more rather than less cooperation from countries facing common obstacles.

Further, I am skeptical after having participated in numerous initiatives of “reform” of the U.N. whether the UN80 Initiative, combined with the Pact for the Future, which emerged from last year’s Summit of the Future, will result in concrete and substantial commitments.

We were not so successful in the past in fostering change. (Negotiations regarding Security Council reform have been going on for more than 30 years.) In addition, we are faced with a situation reminiscent of the 2000 debate regarding the scale of assessments, whereby not only the main contributor to the U.N. budgets (regular and peacekeeping operations) but also several countries are in arrears, limiting the organization’s capacity to meet its commitments. The emergency measures taken hastily and arbitrarily are the opposite of well-thought-out measures to prepare the U.N. for a rejuvenated role to address the future.

We therefore face two potential results, both grossly insufficient.

The first is a lengthy process of conflicting positions that prevent an agreed-upon, rapid path forward, leading to a continuing weakening of the U.N. and even its possible demise.

The second is a transit from a universal organization with a membership that comprises virtually all sovereign states (there are a few exceptions) into an organization made up of a “coalition of the willing,” dividing the world into member states and nonmember states, with all the consequences inherent in such an outcome.

I hope that I am wrong, because the U.N., with all its faults, is still the unique path for humanity to address common problems and conflicts in a cooperative manner, rather than to face an increasingly dangerous and chaotic world.