When I Asked a UN Leader About the Crisis of Trust in the Organization!

The United Nations is today navigating one of its most difficult phases since its establishment more than eighty years ago. Its crisis is no longer confined to funding, bureaucracy, or the ineffectiveness of certain agencies; it has extended to its public image and credibility among broad segments of global public opinion. The war on Gaza, perhaps, was among the most prominent events that exposed the scale of this crisis, reviving painful questions about double standards, the veto power in the Security Council, the limits of international law, and the UN’s capacity to protect civilians and enforce its resolutions.

I recall that during my participation in UN meetings, I raised this issue more than once, even at high levels. Among those instances was my conversation with Chilean Ambassador Paula Narváez during her presidency of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). I asked her how much UN leadership recognized the growing negative perception of the organization, particularly in light of what is happening in Gaza and what many see as a contradiction between declared principles and international practices. Her response, accompanied by gestures that revealed her awareness of these dilemmas and challenges, pointed to serious discussions about reforming the UN.

Today, pressures on the UN are mounting, including its financial crisis, which was exacerbated by policies of the US administration under President Trump, particularly the reduction of funding and delays in meeting financial commitments. However, it is a mistake to reduce the UN’s crisis to financial repercussions alone. There are accumulated institutional and political problems that demand genuine review, ranging from decision-making mechanisms and the veto power to procedural complexities, overlapping mandates, spending efficiency, and accountability. This issue also extends to subjecting non-governmental organizations’ requests for consultative status with ECOSOC to political tug-of-wars that may hinder their approval and limit the voice of civil society, reflecting the encroachment of political considerations over eligibility criteria and raising questions about the consistency, transparency, and fairness of participation.

Therefore, I believe that UN reform initiatives, including the “UN 80” initiative, are not an administrative luxury but a necessity to restore effectiveness and trust. Yet, reform should not be limited to budget cuts and restructuring. The UN also requires political and ethical reform that restores the principles of equality, justice, and human protection, and makes accountability and transparency part of its institutional culture.

Amid all this criticism, I recall what the President of the UN General Assembly, former German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, said: “The world will not be better off without the United Nations, under any circumstances. It is an organization worth fighting for.” Here lies the paradox: when we criticize the UN, we do so because of our need for it, not because we wish to dispense with it. Despite all its failures, the world has no ready alternative to a system that brings its states together to confront wars, pandemics, poverty, and humanitarian disasters.

True defense of the UN does not lie in justifying its mistakes, nor does calling for its reform mean advocating for its dismantling. Between these two positions, I believe that restoring trust begins with an honest acknowledgment of errors, serious reform, and a closer connection to the peoples for whom this organization was originally created. Perhaps the most important question today is not “Can the world do without the UN?” but rather, “How can we recover the UN that the world needs and trusts?”