Reform, or lose trust: Governments press the UN to reflect the world as it is

This article is published in association with United Nations.

Can the UN still remain relevant if it still looks and acts like the organization it was when it was formed in 1945? The debate over UN reform at the General Assembly in New York last month produced a striking common refrain from a diverse range of Member States.

Many governments believe the United Nations can only remain credible and effective if its institutions better reflect the realities of the 21st century. 

From questions of Security Council representation to institutional effectiveness, delegates repeatedly returned to the relationship between power, fairness and legitimacy.

For this third and final analysis piece highlighting key themes, UN News looked at some of the speeches during the annual General Debate of the 193 Member States attending the UN General Assembly.

As Secretary-General António Guterres put it: “The United Nations exists because power requires rules – and humanity needs a place where power answers to principle.”

Who gets a seat at the table?

Security Council reform sat at the centre of discussions about UN reform. 

Speaker after speaker argued that representation and legitimacy can’t be separated, and Africa’s continued absence from permanent membership was a recurrent theme.

Kenya put it bluntly: “The equality proclaimed in this Assembly ends at the doors of the Security Council.”

Guyana made a similar case for the wider world: “We need a Security Council that reflects the geopolitical realities of the 21st century, not the power structures of 1945; a Council that embraces the emerging multipolarity of our world, including permanent representation from Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean.”

The UN chief Mr. Guterres agreed, calling the status quo indefensible: “A 21st century Security Council without permanent African seats is unjust and indefensible.” 

General Assembly President Khalilur Rahman echoed this sentiment: “Africa cannot be asked to wait indefinitely for its rightful place on the Council.”

Consensus on reform, disagreement over how

While support for reform was widespread, governments proposed different solutions.

Spain went furthest, calling for both fairer regional representation and scrapping the veto outright: “We need to reform the Security Council so that all of the regions in the world have fair representation, and so that we can do away with the right of veto of the permanent members.”

Russia, one of the five Permanent Members of the Council, took a more cautious approach backing “the expansion of representation by Asia, Africa and Latin America” but adding that reforms shouldn’t “undermine the intergovernmental nature of the UN system or erode the prerogatives of the UN Security Council and its Permanent Members.”

Trust has to be earned

A second thread ran through the week: Trust, and how easily it erodes when rules get applied selectively.

Hungary argued cooperation and self-interest aren’t actually in opposition: “We believe that national interest and international cooperation do not have to stand against each other,” adding that “the United Nations cannot demand trust. It must earn it.”

Several delegations linked public confidence in international institutions to the consistent application of rules and principles. Concerns were raised about unequal treatment, selective implementation of international law and failures to respond effectively to crises.

A leaner UN?

While the UN has championed its UN80 Initiative, that aims to make the United Nations more coherent, effective and responsive to today’s challenges, countries also offered competing visions of operational reform.

Switzerland and Costa Rica emphasized clear priorities, efficiency and measurable results. 

The President of the General Assembly highlighted overlapping mandates, bureaucratic silos and the need for better coordination at the country level.

However, several speakers warned against treating reform as a cost-cutting exercise.

China said reform should improve institutional performance rather than merely reduce budgets and mandates. 

Guyana argued that resources should match the responsibilities assigned to the Organization. 

Spain called for United Nations agencies, funds and programmes to receive more resources and greater executive capacity.

The differences were not simply about spending. They concerned what the United Nations should do, how much authority it should have and whether better delivery requires stronger operational capacity – or a narrower institutional role.

Is the UN fit for purpose?

A recurring question throughout the debate was not whether the United Nations should exist, but whether it can produce results.

General Assembly President Rahman put it most sharply: “Outside these walls, people are not asking whether the United Nations still exists. They are asking whether it works.” He maintained that it is people which matter, not process: “Every penny must be invested to achieve impact on the ground for the people we serve.”

The United States offered a contrasting model based on institutional retrenchment: “We cut the UN budget for the first time ever, slashing it by 15 percent in 2026 and eliminating more than 4,000 positions from the UN bureaucracy,” while rejecting international involvement in areas considered national prerogatives.

One line united almost everyone

For all the disagreement over vetoes, institutional power and competing reform models, delegates kept circling back to the same core concern.

Namely that the scale of today’s problems has outgrown the structures meant to solve them and that Member States need to work towards building a more resilient and effective organization.

As Gu