UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, “shocked by reports of violence and excessive use of force by Iranian authorities against protesters”, is urging restraint and immediate restoration of communications, as unrest enters its third week. 11 January 2026. Credit: United Nations
NEW YORK, Jan 15 2026 (IPS) – Unlike ever before, Iran’s Islamic regime is facing a revolt led by a generation that has lost its fear. Young and old, men and women, students and workers, are flooding the streets across the country.
Iran’s future may well hinge on whether its military chooses to act and save the country, driven by economic collapse, corruption, and decades of repression. Women and girls are at the forefront, protesting without headscarves, defying the clergy that once controlled every aspect of their lives. They don’t want reform; they are demanding freedom, economic relief, and the end of authoritarianism.
Shutting down the internet, arresting nearly 17,000 protesters, killing at least 3,000, including children, and Trump’s threat to use force to stop the Iranian regime have not prevented the mullahs from continuing their onslaught. The regime’s ruthless crackdown has been a calamitous wave of repression, taking thousands of lives in a brutal attempt to crush dissent. Yet even in the face of such peril, the public remains undeterred, determined to continue their fight.
Now, however, they need the support of the most powerful domestic—not foreign—power to come to their aid. The Iranian military is the most pivotal institution in the country, capable of catalyzing the downfall of the regime. The military is the key player, with significant internal influence and the capability to drive the necessary change from within, ultimately leading to regime change.
Every officer in the military should stop and think, how do I want to serve my country.
Do I want to continue to prop up a bunch of reactionaries, self-obsessed old men who have long since lost their relevance, wearing the false robe of piety to appear sanctimonious while subjugating the people to hardship and hopelessness?
Should I not support the younger generation who are yearning for a better life, for opportunity, for a future that gives meaning to their existence?
Should I not participate in sparking the revival of this magnificent nation from the doldrums of the past 47 years that have consumed it from within?
Should I continue to prepare for war against Israel, or extend a peaceful hand and invest in building my country with such immense natural and human riches and be in the forefront of all other modern democratic and progressive nations, and restore the glory of ancient Persia?
Do I truly want to continue to wear blinders and let my country be destroyed from within, or should I become part of a newly reborn nation and take personal pride in helping to revive it?
The answer to these questions should be clear to every officer. The military should establish a transitional government and pave the way for a legitimate, freely elected government, and restore the Iranian people’s dignity and their right to be free.
The idea that the Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, could return and restore a monarchy is just the opposite of what the Iranian people need. Instead of another form of corruption or an old kingdom, they deserve a democracy and genuine freedom.
In the final analysis, Iran’s destiny may rest on a single profound choice—whether its military steps forward to reshape the nation’s destiny.
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 13 2026 (IPS) – Judging by the mass US withdrawal from 66 UN entities, including UN conventions and international treaties, is it remotely possible that the unpredictable Trump administration may one day decide to pull out of the UN, and force the Secretariat out of New York– despite the 1947 UN-US headquarters agreement?
So, will the United Nations, which has come under heavy fire, be far behind?
That possibility is strengthened by the critical views of the UN both by President Trump and senior US officials.
Dr Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics, University of San Francisco, who has written extensively on issues relating to the United Nations, told IPS even the U.S. presidents most hostile to the United Nations– like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush– recognized the importance of the world body in terms of advancing U.S. interests, including understanding the importance of maintaining the UN system as a whole, even while violating certain legal principles in particular cases.
Similarly, he pointed out, the United States was willing to participate in various UN bodies in an effort to wield influence, even while disagreeing with some of their policies or even their overall mandates.
“The Trump administration, however, appears to be rejecting the post-WWII international legal system as a whole. His statements, particularly since the attack on Venezuela, appear to be a throwback to the 19th-century imperial prerogatives and a rejection of modern international law.”
“As a result, it is possible that Trump could indeed pull the United States out of the United Nations and force the UN out of New York”, declared Dr Zunes.
Addressing the General Assembly last September, Trump remarked, “What is the purpose of the United Nations? It’s not even coming close to living up to [its] potential.”
Dismissing the U.N. as an outdated, ineffective organization, he boasted, “I ended seven wars, dealt with the leaders of each and every one of these countries, and never a phone call from the United Nations offering to help in finalizing the deal.”
Martin S. Edwards, Associate Dean of Academic and Student Affairs, School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University, told IPS “this is dubious language about cutting inefficiency and fighting diversity wrapped up in red meat to feed President Trump’s base”.
It’s a ploy to use foreign affairs to distract voters for whom he has yet to deliver. The fact that the actual follow-up documents haven’t been received by the Secretary General tells you everything here. It fits a pattern of the President carving out maximalist positions and then getting very little in the end, he pointed out.
But it’s a bigger challenge, he said, on two fronts:
1. This is going to continue to REDUCE US influence at the UN rather than increase it. Stable foreign relations are based on credibility. The US continues to squander its reserves, and other countries will step into the vacuum.
2. This policy might have been a good social media post for voters, but makes little sense in practice. What the White House wants is a line-item veto over every single aspect of UN operations. But assessed contributions are not an ala carte menu, declared Edwards.
Mandeep S. Tiwana, Secretary General, CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society organizations, told IPS retreat from international institutions by the Trump Administration is an attack on the legacy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt who gave the people of the United States the New Deal and envisioned a bold framework for the establishment of the UN to overcome the horrors of the Second World War.
“Many of the impacted international institutions were built through the blood, sweat and tears of Americans. Pulling out of these institutions is an affront to their sacrifices and reverses decades of multilateral cooperation on peace, human rights, climate change and sustainable development,” he said.
Meanwhile, the attacks on the UN have continued unabated.
In an interview with Breitbart News, U.S. Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Mike Waltz said, “A quarter of everything the UN does, the United States pays for”.
“Is there money being well spent? I’d say right now, no, because it’s being spent on all of these other woke projects, rather than what it was originally intended to do, what President Trump wants it to do, and what I want it to do, which is focus on peace.”
Historically, the United States has been the largest financial contributor, typically covering around 22% of the UN’s regular budget and up to 28% of the peacekeeping budget.
Still, ironically, the US is also the biggest defaulter. According to the UN’s Administrative and Budgetary Committee, member states currently owe $1.87 billion of the $3.5 billion in mandatory contributions for the current budget cycle.
The former US House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik of New York, a one-time nominee for the post of US Ambassador to the UN, was quoted as saying, “In the UN, Americans see a corrupt, defunct, and paralyzed institution more beholden to bureaucracy, process, and diplomatic niceties than the founding principles of peace, security, and international cooperation laid out in its charter.”
Meanwhile, in a veiled attack on the UN, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, “What we term the “international system” is now overrun with hundreds of opaque international organizations, many with overlapping mandates, duplicative actions, ineffective outputs, and poor financial and ethical governance.”
Even those that once performed useful functions, he pointed out, have increasingly become inefficient bureaucracies, platforms for politicized activism or instruments contrary to our nation’s best interests, he said.
“Not only do these institutions not deliver results, they obstruct action by those who wish to address these problems. The era of writing blank checks to international bureaucracies is over,” declared Rubio
UN’s ‘responsibility to deliver’ will not waver, after US announces withdrawal from dozens of international organizations. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe
“Take up the White Man’s burden — Send forth the best ye breed… By all ye cry or whisper, by all ye leave or do, [T]he silent, sullen peoples shall weigh your gods – and you…” — Rudyard Kipling, The White Man’s Burden: The United States and the Philippine Islands (1899)
NEW YORK, Jan 12 2026 (IPS) – We’re living in an age where the world is loudly proclaiming the death of empire, yet reproducing its structures. This is not nostalgia for colonial postcards — it’s a reinvention of foreign policy, international governance and global economic power that resembles colonial logic far more than it does meaningful cooperation.
The term “New Colonialism” feels extreme until you look not at poetry, but at power in motion — from military takeovers and genocides, to diplomatic withdrawal, to institutions that still perpetuate inequality and human rights’ abuses under the guise of neutrality.
I – Where Are We Today
“Imperialism after all is an act of geographical violence through which virtually every space in the world is explored, charted, and finally brought under control.” — Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism (1993)
In January 2026, the United States executed what amounts to the most dramatic foreign intervention in Latin America in decades: a military incursion into Venezuela resulting in the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro. President Donald Trump openly declared that the U.S. would “run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition.” This is not coded language — it is overt control.
Critics and allies alike see the move not as a limited counternarcotics or law enforcement operation (as the Administration frames it), but as a return to the old playbook of hemispheric domination. Latin American governments from Mexico to Brazil condemned it as a violation of sovereignty — a modern mirror to the regime-change interventions of the 20th century.
Analysts at Foreign Policy have highlighted precisely how this intervention fits into a larger pattern of U.S. foreign policy ambition. Rishi Iyengar and John Haltiwanger note that under the banner of battling “narcoterrorism,” the United States has expanded the role of its military into actions that blur the distinction between security and political control — “adding bombing alleged drug traffickers to its ever-growing list of duties.”
Such actions reflect a foreign policy that is increasingly militarized and deeply unilateral in its execution.
This intervention was not an isolated blip. It fits into a broader dynamic which suggests Washington’s moves in Venezuela are less about drug interdiction and more about strategic positioning and resource control — especially Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.
In the context of a “World-Minus-One” global order where U.S. power is contested by China and Russia, interventionist impulses have resurfaced not as humanitarian projects but as geopolitical gambits.
Viewed through the lens of colonial critique, the language of “rescuing” Venezuelans from an accused dictator echoes Kipling’s exhortation to take up the supposed moral burden. But those centuries-old justifications masked violence and labour exploitation; today’s rhetoric masks geopolitical self-interest.
The U.S. claims to be liberating Venezuelans from authoritarianism, yet asserts control over governance and economic infrastructure — a 21st-century version of telling another nation it cannot govern itself without direction from Washington. The result is not liberation, but dependency — a hallmark of colonial relationships.
II. The U.S. Withdrawal from Multilateral Institutions
“The White Man’s Burden, which puts the blame of the new subjects upon themselves without acknowledging the real burden — the systematic, structural and often violent exploitation — is the oldest myth of empire.”
Kumari Jayawardena, The White Woman’s Other Burden: Western Women and South Asia During British Colonial Rule, (1995)
If the takeover of Venezuela reads like old-fashioned empire building, the withdrawal from multilateral institutions is a disengagement from the very forums meant to prevent that kind of unilateralism.
In early 2026, the United States signed a presidential memorandum seeking to withdraw support and participation from 66 international organizations — including numerous United Nations agencies and treaty frameworks seen as “contrary to U.S. interests.” This list contains both U.N. bodies and other treaty mechanisms, extending a pattern of U.S. disengagement from global governance structures.
Among the organizations targeted are the U.N.’s population agency and the framework treaty for international climate negotiations. Already, U.S. participation in historic climate agreements like the Paris Agreement has been rolled back, and the World Health Organization was officially exited — marking a return to a transactional, bilateral focus rather than deep multilateral cooperation.
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres responded to the announcement with regret and a reminder of legal obligations: assessed contributions to the regular and peacekeeping budgets are binding under the U.N. Charter for all member states, including the United States. He also underscored that despite U.S. withdrawal, the agencies will continue their work for the communities that depend on them.
This move comes against a backdrop in which the U.N. and other institutions are already grappling with serious internal challenges — problems that critics argue undermine their legitimacy and point to deeper governance failures. For instance, allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. peacekeepers and staff have repeatedly surfaced, with hundreds of cases documented and concerns raised about the trustworthiness of leadership responses.
In 2024 alone, peacekeeping and political missions reported over 100 allegations, and internal surveys showed troubling attitudes among staff toward misconduct.
Such abuses are not random flukes; scholars and advocates have documented persistent organizational cultures where power imbalances enable exploitation and harassment, and where transparency and accountability often lag.
These structural issues do not delegitimize the idea of multilateral cooperation — but they certainly challenge claims that these institutions function as equitable and effective global governance mechanisms.
International non-governmental organizations (INGOs) are likewise under scrutiny. Critics point to cases where aid workers have perpetrated sexual abuse and exploitation or where organizational priorities have at times aligned more with donor interests than with local needs.
A 2024 study on sexual exploitation and harassment in humanitarian work highlights how power imbalances and weak enforcement mechanisms within the sector contribute to ongoing abuses that remain under-reported and inadequately addressed.
These issues — within the U.N. and the humanitarian sector — fuel frustration that multilateralism too often protects institutional reputation at the expense of victims and local communities. That frustration helps explain why some U.S. policymakers see these organizations as outdated or corrupt.
But the response of walking away rather than strengthening accountability mechanisms plays directly into the hands of those who would hollow out global governance altogether.
III. It Takes Two to Tango
So, is the United States the villain in this unfolding story of fractured cooperation and revived colonial impulses? Yes — but only partially.
There is no denying that recent U.S. foreign policy has made unilateral moves that harm global norms: military intervention in sovereign states, withdrawal from key treaties and organizations, and politicized rejection of multinational cooperation reflect a retreat from shared leadership. Yet, the belief that multilateral institutions are inherently effective, just and beyond reproach is equally misplaced.
Structural weaknesses in international governance — from slow, opaque accountability mechanisms to insufficient representation of Global South voices — have long been recognized by scholars and practitioners. These deficiencies leave global organizations vulnerable to political capture, ineffectiveness in crisis response and the perpetuation of inequalities they are meant to dismantle.
The failures inside the U.N. and the aid sector are not the sole fault of the United States, but of a global system that institutionalized power hierarchies sustained by western donors, from the beginning.
The New Colonialism era does not show up as 19th-century conquest; it’s woven into the language of “interest,” “security,” and “institutional reform.” Whether it is a powerful state flexing military might under humanitarian pretences or “self defence”, or powerful states walking away from agreements that protect smaller nations’ interests, the pattern is the same: power asserts itself where it can, and multilateral norms are treated as optional.
If this moment teaches us anything, it’s that saving multilateralism requires both accountability and renewal — not abandonment. Countries that champion global cooperation must address colonial legacies in governance, ensure institutions are transparent and accountable, and democratize decision-making.
Likewise, powerful states must recognize that withdrawing from shared systems or using them to further their own limited interests, does not reset power imbalances — it entrenches them.
In the end, meaningful global cooperation cannot be the project of a single nation or a network of powerful elites. It must be rooted in shared accountability and genuine equity — a coalition of efforts for the common good, prepared not only to compromise, but to sacrifice.
Azza Karam is President of Lead Integrity and Director of Occidental College’s Kahane UN Program.
GENEVA, Dec 11 2025 (IPS) – Human rights are underfunded, undermined and under attack. And yet. Powerful. Undeterred. Mobilizing.
This year no doubt has been a difficult one. And one full of dangerous contradictions. Funding for human rights has been slashed, while anti-rights movements are increasingly well-funded.
Profits for the arms industry are soaring, while funding for humanitarian aid and grassroots civil society plummets. Those defending rights and justice are attacked, sanctioned and hauled before courts, even as those ordering the commission of atrocity crimes continue to enjoy impunity.
Diversity, equity and inclusion policies that were adopted to address historical and structural injustices are being vilified as unjust. The prognosis would be incredibly dire if these were the only trends. But the pushback on human rights is facing pushback from a groundswell of human rights activism.
In Nepal, Serbia, Madagascar, Kenya, Bangladesh, Ecuador, Paraguay, the Philippines, Indonesia, Tanzania, Morocco, Peru and beyond, mostly young people have taken to the streets and to social media against inequalities, against corruption or repression, in favour of freedom of expression, and for their everyday essential rights.
People across the world have also been protesting against war and injustice, and demanding climate action, in places far from home, expressing solidarity and pressuring their governments to take action.
I urge governments around the world to harness the energy of these social movements into opportunities for broader transformational reforms rather than rushing to suppress them or label them as extremist threats to national security. They are, in fact, the exact opposite of threats to national security.
On the challenges I had set out earlier, here is some data:
Funding: Our resources have been slashed, along with funding for human rights organisations – including at the grassroots level – around the world. We are in survival mode.
My Office has had about USD 90 million less than we needed this year, which means around 300 jobs have been lost, and essential work has had to be cut, including on Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Tunisia and other countries at a time when the needs are rising.
Special Rapporteur country visits and investigative missions by fact-finding bodies have also been reduced, sometimes drastically. Crucial dialogues with States on their compliance with UN human rights treaties have had to be postponed – last year there were 145 State party reviews, we are down to 103 this year.
We see that all this has extensive ripple effects on international and national efforts to protect human rights.
Meanwhile, anti-rights and anti-gender movements are increasingly coordinated and well-funded, operating across borders. According to the European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights, for example, almost USD 1.2 billion was mobilized by anti-rights groups in Europe between 2019 and 2023.
There is significant money flowing into the anti-rights agenda from funders based in Europe, Russia and the United States of America. Such massive funding, coupled with media capture and disinformation strategies have made the anti-rights agenda a powerful cross-regional force.
Another distressing dataset is that from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). It says that arms and military services revenues for the 100 largest arms companies reached a record USD 679 billion in 2024. SIPRI has said demand was boosted by wars in Ukraine and Gaza, by global and regional geopolitical tensions, and ever-higher military expenditure.
There have been efforts this year to secure ceasefires and peace deals, which are certainly welcome. However, for peace to be sustainable, human rights must play a central role. There From prevention to negotiating to monitoring to accountability, recovery and peacebuilding.
And we need to do a reality check.
As we have seen in Gaza and in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, agreements have yet to translate into effective protection of civilians on the ground.
Gaza remains a place of unimaginable suffering, loss and fear. While the bloodshed has reduced, it has not stopped. Attacks by Israel continue, including on individuals approaching the so-called “yellow line”, residential buildings, and IDP tents and shelters as well as other civilian objects.
Access to essential services and goods remain severely inadequate. In the West Bank, we are seeing unprecedent levels of attacks by Israeli forces and settlers against Palestinians, forcing them from their land. This is a time to intensify pressure and advocacy – not to sink into complacency – for Palestinians across the occupied territory.
Clashes between the DRC armed forces and the Rwandan-backed M23 armed group continue, alongside serious human rights violations and abuses. Civilians, again, are bearing the brunt. Overnight, you’ll have seen, there have been reports of thousands fleeing the densely populated South Kivu city of Uvira amid escalating clashes between the M23 and DRC armed forces, backed by Wazalendo militia.
This comes just days after the DRC and Rwanda reaffirmed their commitment to implement the June 2025 Washington Peace Agreement. Over the years, we have documented outrageous violations against civilians in Uvira, including rape and sexual and gender-based violence. The risk of a broader regional confrontation appears to be increasing.
In Sudan, the brutal conflict between the army and the Rapid Support Forces continues unabated. From Darfur and the Kordofans to Khartoum and Omdurman and beyond, no Sudanese civilian has been left untouched by the cruel and senseless violence. I am extremely that we might see a repeat of the atrocities committed in El Fasher in Kordofan.
In Ukraine, civilian harm has risen sharply. Civilian casualties so far this year are 24 per cent higher than the same period last year, largely due to Russia’s increased use of powerful long-range weapons in large numbers and its continuing efforts across broad front to capture further Ukrainian territory by armed force.
Large-scale attacks on Ukraine’s energy system have caused emergency outages and prolonged daily electricity cuts, disruptions to water and heating services in many areas. Urgent steps need to be taken to alleviate suffering, including the return of transferred children, the exchange of all prisoners of war, and the unconditional release of civilian detainees held by Russian authorities.
For any sustainable peace to be negotiated, it is important that confidence-building measures are taken, grounded in human rights, including steps to alleviate civilian suffering, promote accountability and preserve a basis for future dialogue. And, importantly, women need to be a part of this process.
It is imperative that peace deals and ceasefires are secured and implemented in good faith. And with full respect for international law, which can never be set aside for political convenience.
It is also critical to counter the demonization of and hatemongering rhetoric against migrants and refugees. In various countries, worryingly, we are seeing violent pushbacks, large-scale raids, arrest and returns without due process, criminalization of migrants and refugees and those who support them, as well as the outsourcing of responsibilities under international law.
I urge States to embark on an evidence-based policy debate on migration and refugee issues, anchored in international human rights and refugee law.
In the course of many electoral campaigns this year, we have also seen a pattern of democratic backsliding, restrictive civic space and electoral violence.
Myanmar’s upcoming military-imposed “election”, is accompanied by new waves of acute insecurity and violence, continued arrests and detentions of opponents, voter coercion, the use of extensive electronic surveillance tools and systemic discrimination. I fear this process will only further deepen insecurity, fear and polarization throughout the country.
There is, unfortunately, never a shortage of human rights challenges to face, issues to resolve, and values to defend. What is heartening is that there are so many of us, around the world, attached to the same universal human rights values – no matter the noise, the gaslighting, and the persistent injustices.
I am energized by the social movements – particularly those led by young people. They are writing the latest chapters in the time-honoured struggle for our collective humanity and dignity. Journalists, activists, and human rights defenders have been at the forefront of the global movement for freedom, equality and justice.
Such perseverance has achieved landmark victories for the rights of women, migrants, people discriminated against on the basis of descent, minorities, our environment, and so much more.
The Security Council in session. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 11 2025 (IPS) – When there was widespread speculation that a UN Under-Secretary-General (USG), a product of two prestigious universities—Oxford and Cambridge—was planning to run for the post of Secretary-General back in the 1980s, I pointedly asked him to confirm or deny the rumor during an interview in the UN delegate’s lounge.
“I don’t think”, he declared, “anyone in his right mind will ever want that job”.
Fast forward to 2026.
As a financially stricken UN is looking for a new Secretary-General, who will take office beginning January 2027, the USG’s remark in a bygone era was a reflection of a disaster waiting to happen.
The current Secretary-General is facing a daunting task battling for the very survival of the UN, with a hostile White House forcing the world body to sharply reduce its staff, slash funding and relocate several UN agencies, moving them out of New York.
The bottom line: the incoming Secretary-General will inherit a virtually devastated United Nations.
Addressing the General Assembly last September, President Trump remarked, “What is the purpose of the United Nations? It’s not even coming close to living up to [its] potential.”
Dismissing the U.N. as an outdated, ineffective organization, he boasted, “I ended seven wars, dealt with the leaders of each and every one of these countries, and never a phone call from the United Nations offering to help in finalizing the deal.”
Whoever is elected, the new UN chief will have to faithfully abide by the ground rules of the Trump administration virtually abandoning what the UN stands for, including racial equality and gender empowerment (DEI)
“Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies that were adopted to address historical and structural injustices are being vilified as unjust,” says Volker Turk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
In his 345-page book titled “Unvanquished: A US-UN Saga,” released in 1999, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, a former Secretary-General, points out that although he was accused by Washington of being “too independent” of the US, he eventually did everything in his power to please the Americans.
But when he ran for a second term, the US, which preaches the Western concept of majority rule, exercised its veto even though Boutros-Ghali received 14 of the 15 votes in the Security Council, including the votes of the other four permanent members of the Council, namely the UK, France, Russia and China.
In such circumstances, tradition would demand the dissenting US abstain on the vote and respect the wishes of the overwhelming majority in the Security Council. But the US did not.
Unlike most of his predecessors and successors, Boutros-Ghali refused to blindly play ball with the US despite the fact that he occasionally caved into US pressure at a time when Washington had gained a notoriety for trying to manipulate the world body to protect its own national interests.
Jesselina Rana, UN Advisor at CIVICUS’ UN Hub in New York and the steering committee of the 1 for 8 Billion campaign, told IPS when key international norms are being openly flouted by certain member states and the veto is used to undermine the very principles the UN was built on, will structural reforms alone be enough to restore trust in the institution?”
Can the UN80 process genuinely rebuild trust in multilateralism, she asked, when the process itself has been opaque and has lacked meaningful civil society participation?
“An accountable and transparent Secretary-General selection process requires stronger and more explicit support from member states.”
A process that is open and inclusive of civil society and grounded in feminist leadership will strengthen the UN’s ability to navigate today’s difficult geopolitical conditions and help rebuild trust in multilateralism, she argued.
After 80 years of male leadership, the next Secretary-General should be a woman with a proven record on gender equality, human rights, peace, sustainable development, and multilateralism, declared Rana.
Felix Dodds, Adjunct Professor at the Water Institute, University of North Carolina and Associate Fellow, the Tellus Institute, Boston, who has written extensively on the UN, told IPS the UN is experiencing challenging times, living through what are probably the most difficult times since the Cold War.
It may not be a bad idea to move some UN bodies. UNDP did a lot of that under Helen Clarke—being closer to the people you are working to help, maybe it is a cost-cutting issue, but it may also be something that should have been considered before.
“The new SG will need to be someone Trump allows, as he has a veto,” he pointed out.
“Of the candidates we looked at before, the only one that is realistic is Rebeca Grynspan from UNCTAD. She has shown herself to be a good bureaucrat and has led UNCTAD well, as she did for Costa Rica when she was the Deputy President, said Dodds, City of Bonn International Ambassador.
“We may be looking at a man again,” he said.
Clearly, the new secretary-general taking over in 2027 has a daunting task ahead. Whoever it is will have had to make concessions to the P5 on the size and reach of the UN. The present cuts may be just the first set to come down.
“A UN with a clearer mandate on what it will do may be a result. Stakeholders need to, of course, defend the UN as a critical body for multilateral affairs BUT they must at the same time be putting forward reforms that are simple and strengthen the area they are working on.”
There is no way we can get security reform through—it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be proposed, but what is realistic in the areas being reformed is that stakeholders and governments can work together on it.
Ultimately, the driving force should be a more effective UN delivering on the ground. Do reform proposals do that? he asked.
“The organization has always worked in a world of political pressures. I agree the body should be a place for dialogue and protection of the most vulnerable. UN80 offers an opportunity for dialogue on realistic proposals. The question is, what are they in the different areas?” he said.
Dr. Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, where he serves as coordinator of the program in Middle Eastern Studies, told IPS following the Napoleonic Wars, the Council of Europe largely kept the peace until the Central Powers decided it no longer worked for them. The result was World War I.
The League of Nations then set up a framework to keep the peace until the Axis powers decided it no longer worked for them. The result of World War II, he said.
“We are now at a similar crossroads, where the United Nations system is being challenged by both Russia and the United States which–as demonstrated through the invasions of Iraq and Ukraine—no longer feel constrained by the prohibition against aggressive war.”
“The more recent U.S. assaults on the UN are particularly damaging, given the importance of U.S. financial contributions to the UN’s functioning and Washington’s ability in recent weeks to push through resolutions in the UN Security Council seemingly legitimizing illegal Israeli and Moroccan military occupations of their neighbors.”
UN members must be willing to risk the wrath of the Trump administration by standing up for the UN Charter and basic principles of international law. Nothing less than the future of the world body and international peace and security is at stake, declared Dr Zunes.
The United Nations Headquarters as seen from First Avenue in New York City. Credit: UN News/Vibhu Mishra
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Dec 10 2025 (IPS) – The election of the next Secretary-General of the United Nations comes at a highly inopportune moment in 2026, when the UN is being bypassed, and multilateralism—with the UN at its core—is under increasing challenge from some of the world’s most powerful states and leaders.
The new Secretary-General, taking office in 2027, will inherit an unprecedented financial crisis and a pressing need for major institutional reorganization simply to keep the UN afloat. At first glance, this hardly seems like the right moment for a new SG to advance a bold vision—one capable of winning over powerful leaders who appear lukewarm toward strengthening genuine multilateralism and instead prefer a multipolar order where each can guard its own sphere of influence.
Yet history reminds us that some of the boldest ideas have emerged during periods of great upheaval—wars, revolutions, and global crises. It is therefore conceivable that a visionary new UN leader could break new ground, introduce innovative ideas, and help plant the seeds for a rejuvenated, rules-based world order.
Kul Gautam
While many of today’s most powerful leaders may be ambivalent about multilateralism, the world’s general public—especially the digitally savvy younger generation—has a strong sense of global interdependence.
They increasingly identify as global citizens, eager to thrive in a borderless world, and are more likely to embrace visionary proposals for UN reform that meet the realities of the 21st century.
A promising starting point would be the election of the first-ever female Secretary-General of the UN. Another essential reform would be restructuring the UN’s financing system to make it more broad-based and less dependent on the whims of a few wealthy, powerful states.
Some consolidation of the UN’s sprawling architecture—much of it underfunded—is already underway through the current SG’s UN80 Initiative. A new SG could accelerate this effort, earning the support of both critics and cynics.
Still, even a dynamic and visionary new SG will require the backing of Member States. At present, leaders of the most powerful states, particularly the veto-wielding P5, seem disinclined to empower the world’s top diplomat as a true global leader.
While many enlightened global citizens—especially Gen Z—hope for a bold, inspiring figure at the helm, the major powers may prefer a more compliant “Secretary” rather than a strong, strategic “General.”
With the rise of the Global South and groupings such as BRICS+ and the G20, the balance of power—especially soft power—is shifting away from the states that founded the UN 80 years ago.
One hopes this evolving landscape will help strengthen the UN and reinvigorate multilateralism, which remains the only viable way to confront such transcendental issues as climate change, war and peace, pandemics, widening inequalities, and the profound opportunities and risks of the AI revolution.
The world urgently needs a more effective UN to address these pressing global challenges—none of which any nation, however rich or powerful, can tackle alone. It is to be hoped that world leaders, attuned to their peoples’ aspirations, will choose a highly capable new Secretary-General and empower her to help build a more peaceful and prosperous world for present and future generations.
Kul Gautam is a former UN Assistant Secretary-General, Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF and author of Global Citizen from Gulmi: My Journey from the Hills of Nepal to the Halls of the United Nations.
