Analysis: US Correspondent Logan Church reports from New York as countries gathered at the General Assembly question whether the UN is still fit-for-purpose.
There is little the world seems to agree on, but at this year’s United Nations General Assembly, there appeared to be consensus that the 81-year-old institution isn’t working.
And not just the building itself. Workers there I know constantly complain to me that the UN headquarters in New York seems to be falling apart thanks to years of under investment – but the organisation itself seems to be failing all over the place to resolve any of the increasing list of crises plaguing our planet.
Man-made problems top the list of concern for many – Israel's actions in Gaza, a five-year old all-out invasion by Russia of Ukraine, American warmongering in the Middle East, a bloody civil war in Sudan to mention a few.
After voicing his own contempt for the UN, US president Donald Trump has created his own Security Council-esque group called the ‘Board of Peace’ to resolve issues such as the war in Gaza.
Climate and sustainability goals have also seemed to be placed on the backburner.
"It is clear we live in a more contested, fragmented and volatile world," said Victoria Hallum, New Zealand’s Permanent Representative to the UN during our country's address yesterday. "The number of active conflicts in the world has doubled in the past 20 years. The number of conflict-related deaths has reached levels not seen in decades.
"Humanitarian needs are growing faster than our collective ability to meet them. After decades of progress, hard-won development gains have slowed, and it's clear we will fail to meet most of the sustainable development goals by their 2030 target."
One of the many here in New York this week concerned about the trajectory of this organisation is former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark, who also served as head of the UN Development Programme between 2009-2017. She unsuccessfully stood for Secretary-General in 2016.
"The UN is not in the greatest state that we've seen it. If you compare this with a year like 2015 where it had the big global agreements around Paris and the sustainable development goals and so on, we're light years away from that," she told me at the UN HQ this week.
"The peace and security arm of it is really struggling. The UN is not a significant player resolving any of the many conflicts around the world. And that's so fundamental to its job that it's raising a lot of issues about viability."
The world is now more complex, she said.
"A lot of these wars have proxies, if you like. They're a great power or regional power hands behind the scenes. There's no space for the UN to come in. But really the UN has to barge its way in. And I think an energetic new Secretary General, because everyone comes with energy and hopes and aspirations, is saying that they will be relentless in the case for peace."
Speaking to attendees at the UN General Assembly this year, there seemed to be a lot of excitement over what a new Secretary-General could bring to the organisation, which has been starved of funding largely due to the United States so far refusing to pay about US$4.2 billion (NZ$7.4 billion) in dues.
Outgoing UN boss António Guterres sounded alarm bells during his final address.
"Our institutions and systems of global governance continue to reflect the power realities and interests of a largely bygone age," he said. "That is the defining challenge before us. At the very moment when humanity faces an unprecedented convergence of threats, our mechanisms for collective action are under growing strain."
The post-World War Two world the UN was born into was incredibly different, said Clark.
"For a start, most of today's member states of the UN were not here in 1945 when the charter was written. They were colonised, not put too fine a point on it. And so they've always felt that the charter was written really without their input. I am an advocate for a charter review conference process... where you can look at all the options of how you might modernise the organisation."
The United Nations is, however, an institution much of the world relies on for global stability, said Gabrielle Rush, a senior Kiwi diplomat currently serving as the Deputy Secretary, Multilateral and Legal, at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
She led the New Zealand delegation this year. I spoke to her at the official New Zealand residence across the road from the UN headquarters.
"We rely on the United Nations to provide us with a system, a global system that is stable based on international rules and norms," Rush said.
"I think our message is to reaffirm the principles of the United Nations Charter and the importance of this global organisation and which has – and people can criticise many things over past decades – but for 80-plus years, really provided and underpinned a global system that has convened and been the vehicle for bringing countries together to try and work through issues.
"We would argue that at a time of real geopolitical instability, there's never been a more important time for this organisation and its member states to deliver on that agenda."
She pointed out the purpose of the UN also goes beyond trying to resolve conflict.
"For everyday New Zealanders, this is the organisation under which the rules and norms are formed that govern their everyday lives. It is the rules of aviation that got me here safely on the plane. It's the rules of navigation that govern maritime safety.
"It's the rules that make your phone and these telecommunications work in different countries around the world and these all flow from a United Nations system. I think the purpose of the UN in its broadest sense remains incredibly clear and we need to remind ourselves of it."
Where is Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, Foreign Minister Winston Peters... or anyone?
Despite the precarious state of the world right now, and how much issues such as Trump’s tariffs, America’s war on Iran, and the flow on effect of raising oil prices across the world, the New Zealand government didn’t send an elected minister to represent its delegation, as most other countries did.
"With voting in New Zealand’s election starting in under five weeks, the campaign is in full swing," said a spokesperson for Peters.
"It is very common for governments, including New Zealand, to be represented by a senior official at the United Nations General Assembly High-Level Week when it is held this close to an election."
This argument, however, was rejected by former Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who Winston Peters has served in government with.
“Obviously a UN conference in September of election year is not the most convenient, but normally you would find at least a junior minister to come up and fly the flag,” she said.
“We don't have that. The officials are carrying the weight of it...New Zealand's been an upholder of the international order, an upholder of international law. Where are we?”
Last election then-Foreign Minister, Nanai Mahuta, addressed the assembly.
“It sends a message that New Zealand is somewhat disengaged at the present time,” said Clark. “We have good diplomats, they'll do their best, but it's not the same as the political level engagement of a government.”
Minister Peters attended and spoke at the previous two UN General Assembly High-Level weeks. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has neither attended or addressed the UN during this government.
SHARE ME