At this year’s highest-profile UN event, US President Donald Trump publicly mused over his ‘big decision’ about whether to ‘annihilate’ Iran, called the International Criminal Court an ‘evil group of people’ and mocked warnings about the dangers of unregulated AI development. As dozens of delegates walked out, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu branded those who protested against his campaign of genocide in Gaza ‘moral cowards’. Argentina’s President Javier Milei called the UN a ‘useless organisation’ and vowed to ‘take matters into our own hands’ in the country’s historic territorial dispute with the UK.

The UN was established in the devastating aftermath of the Second World War with the explicit aim, expressed in the first line of its founding charter, to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’. The charter commits all UN members to settling disputes peacefully. Yet at the UN General Assembly’s annual high-level session, held in September, several national leaders used a podium meant for peace and international cooperation to justify and threaten violence.

Under the vague theme of ‘Restoring Trust, Managing Transformation: a United Nations that Delivers for All’, 113 national leaders took to the podium and 194 delegations spoke in all. But there were notable absences. Chinese President Xi Jinping didn’t bother to attend despite being in the USA, focusing instead on bilateral talks with Trump. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was absent for a different reason. Although the USA, as the UN’s host country, is obliged to grant visas to diplomatic missions, the US government refused him a visa for the second year running, forcing him to address the session by video.

A reported 128 speeches mentioned AI, fuelled by recent public statements by tech company leaders about the dangers the unregulated technology may pose to humanity, while the UN Security Council invited tech leaders to a briefing. Many leaders also used their speeches to discuss how the UN should change. Some made constructive suggestions, such as Security Council reform, but others simply attacked the institution.

The bellicose tone of many speeches signalled a broader crisis of multilateralism. Autocrats are throwing their weight around, determined to prove that might makes right, or, as Trump put it when boasting of US control of Venezuelan oil, ‘to the victor belong the spoils’. Such leaders care little for international laws, norms, institutions and processes, unless they can bend them to their will.

Powerful states are withdrawing from institutions, defunding them, refusing to cooperate and forming rival, more selective and less formal groupings. Nakedly transactional deal-making is replacing collective action, fragmenting the multilateral system. As a rules-based order gives way to something more ad hoc and chaotic, civil society’s opportunities to engage and seek influence are withering. All this is happening as huge transnational problems mount up, including the climate crisis, economic inequality, impunity for conflict atrocities and the repression of civic space.

The race to succeed Guterres

In his last general debate speech as secretary-general, António Guterres set out the challenges. He highlighted three transformative trends: the emergence of new economic, political and technological powers, the transfer of authority from states to private corporations and individuals, and a growing devolution of decision-making from humans to machines. He argued that four issues will test how power is used and how the future is shaped: AI, climate change, conflict and inequality. He called for power to be bound by principles and subject to rules.

When national leaders next gather in New York, in September 2027, someone else will be at the helm. Guterres’s second and final term expires at the end of the year, and states are now choosing his successor.

Civil society is calling for a feminist woman leader who puts human rights first. Yet human rights feature little in the debate. A former UN human rights chief, Michelle Bachelet, has pulled out because straw polls among the 15 Security Council members, a key stage of the process, showed she lacked support.

In each poll, states can ‘encourage’ or ‘discourage’ a candidacy, or express ‘no opinion’. So far, five rounds have proved inconclusive. Former Costa Rican Vice President Rebeca Grynspan has emerged as the frontrunner, but the latest poll saw her receive six ‘discourage’ votes compared to three in the round before. No candidate commands overwhelming backing and it’s possible none of the current field of seven will prevail and other candidates will come forward.

Civil society is trying to engage with and scrutinise the process, but ultimately states don’t have to publicly justify their decisions. Because the Security Council is central to the process, the final say rests with its five permanent members – China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA –, any of which can veto a candidate it dislikes. The final vote by all states at the General Assembly has always been a formality. Opaque negotiations are therefore likely to produce a compromise candidate that China, Russia and the USA find sufficiently inoffensive.

As the race heats up, there are signs candidates are avoiding speaking about issues that may be seen as contentious for fear of losing support. States that back particular candidates may decide not to ask difficult questions that could cost their preferred candidates votes. As a result, important matters such as Israel’s campaign of genocide in Gaza and the rights of excluded groups are being sidelined. Anyone who sees themselves as a world leader should be taking these issues on, but candidates’ refusal to do so shows how firmly powerful states are calling the shots.

One candidate, Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, has been the target of a hit piece in the Wall Street Journal over comments condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide, made in her role as Guyana’s ambassador to the UN. The intent is clearly to encourage the USA to block her.

Civil society expects a global voice of conscience, someone prepared to go further than serving states and willing to speak up on the issues candidates are now avoiding. History shows that, even in difficult times, the personality and leadership style of the secretary-general can make a big difference. Whoever prevails will have to steer the UN through crisis and rebuild respect for the institution and the broader promise of multilateralism, and that will require putting human rights first.

Beyond 2030

When they next meet, national leaders will also have the opportunity to shape the future of development. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the set of 17 interconnected goals agreed by every UN member state in 2015 to ensure peace and prosperity for all, expire in 2030. Next year’s SDG Summit will consider what comes next.

The current state of the world shows how far implementation has fallen short of the vision. Only 36 per cent of targets are on track or making moderate progress. The multilateral cooperation that created the SDGs has deteriorated. At the latest annual review of progress in July, states couldn’t even agree on language on climate change, gender and human rights that until recently had been uncontroversial. Against this unpromising backdrop, states are likely to set their sights low.

It matters who gets to set the terms and scope of the debate on the development agenda. Lessons must be learned from what hasn’t worked, including low prioritisation, patchy implementation and approaches that were technocratic and siloed when they needed to be rights-based and inclusive.

Some flaws were built in from the start. The SDGs include vital language on accountability, partnerships with civil society and respect for fundamental freedoms, but they fail to acknowledge the importance of civic space. Where civic space is restricted, people struggle to speak out about their needs and civil society organisations are less able to implement the goals, guard against corruption and hold decision-makers accountable. Civil society is also sidelined when states report to the UN on their SDG progress. Reporting is voluntary, states aren’t required to consult civil society and there are no safeguards against reprisals for those who challenge official narratives.

A key test of the post-2030 agenda will be whether it strengthens respect for civic space and civil society’s role. At a minimum, there must be no regression on what was agreed in 2015, but the world has changed and there must be ambition to meet new and evolving challenges. Alongside the fragmentation of multilateralism, the debate will have to reckon with growing authoritarianism, accelerating climate breakdown, coordinated backlash against gender equality, new challenges presented by rapid technological development and increasing militarisation. If change is to come, a critical mass of states will need to contemplate bigger structural reforms, including of global financial institutions, and confront corporate power, particularly the vast lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry.

Access needed

A packed agenda lies ahead, and it falls to civil society to form and hold on to a progressive vision of what the next goals should be and how the UN can help make the world a better place.

But civil society remains excluded. It was once again forced to the sidelines for the high-level session. The passes of organisations that have cleared accreditation hurdles and normally have access to UN headquarters are suspended during the annual high-level session. This speaks of a broader exclusion. The UN has failed to advance even modest proposals to recognise civil society’s role, such as instituting a UN civil society day or appointing an envoy to coordinate civil society engagement.

Meanwhile, the UN’s funding crisis is further impacting on civil society’s participation. The chief culprit is the USA, which owes around US$4.2 billion in contributions. The USA and other powerful states are defunding and sidelining the UN’s human rights functions in particular, which are the ones civil society engages with most. The result is job cuts, curtailed mandates and fewer opportunities for civil society participation.

The arrival of a new secretary-general and the debate on new development goals bring not just challenges but also opportunities. To seize them, civil society will need to build stronger coalitions and collaborate more closely than ever. It must engage constructively with the next secretary-general while raising expectations, putting stronger access and partnerships on the table.

A state-centric UN will fail. A UN that hopes to make a difference on big problems, rebuild respect for human rights and win an increasingly contested argument for the value of multilateralism can’t keep excluding civil society. The next secretary-general must champion an open and accountable UN that recognises civil society as an essential partner. Otherwise, the UN’s promise to protect humanity from the scourges of war, poverty and human rights abuses will continue to recede.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org