Reflecting about the United Nations: today and the future

Navigating the Thucydides Trap: The Pragmatic Rebirth of Global Governance

The current discourse surrounding the post-1945 global order often falls into a trap of fatalism. It is true that reading the present institutional reconfiguration as a mere "evolutionary phase" without acknowledging the raw geopolitical realities can seem like academic escapism. We are indeed caught in the gravitational pull of the Thucydides Trap—navigating the perilous structural collision between a ruling hegemon (the United States) fighting to maintain its primacy, and a rising challenger (China) determined to reshape the global architecture.

However, to declare the multilateral system "dead" or to view this transition solely through the lens of catastrophic collapse is to miss the profound, pragmatic evolution taking place. The global order is not being crushed; it is being stress-tested and forced to shed its utopian illusions in favour of a much more resilient, realistic, and decentralized architecture.

Here is why the new geopolitical game offers a genuine pathway to stability and a renewed, albeit different, form of global cooperation:

1. The P5 Monopoly: From "Gridlock" to the Architecture of Mutual Containment.

 Critics rightly point out that the Permanent Five (P5) of the UN Security Council act as a cartel, and that true, egalitarian reform of the veto system is highly unlikely. However, in the context of the Thucydides Trap, the veto is not a fatal flaw—it is a vital safety valve.

The UN was never designed to be a world parliament; it was designed to prevent World War III. The fact that the US, China, and Russia possess veto power ensures that the system cannot be used to cross their existential red lines, thereby preventing direct kinetic conflict. What critics call "terminal gridlock" is, in reality, the operationalization of mutual deterrence. This friction forces great powers to negotiate "minimum understandings" outside of maximalist rhetoric. By acknowledging that universal consensus is impossible, the P5 are inadvertently creating a realistic architecture of mutual containment, ensuring that the US-China competition remains cold, calculated, and manageable rather than explosive.

2. The UN Secretary-General: The Power of Quiet Diplomacy

 It is easy to lament the P5’s preference for a compliant "Secretary" over a crusading "General" under Article 99. But in an era of hyper-polarized superpower competition, a megaphone is often less effective than a back-channel.

As we approach the selection of a new UN Secretary-General in 2026, the need is not for a polarizing visionary who will publicly shame Washington or Beijing or Moscow —which would only accelerate institutional withdrawal—but for a master of quiet diplomacy. A pragmatic, consensus-building Secretary-General can serve as the indispensable geopolitical shock absorber. By keeping the lines of communication open when public rhetoric (whether from a Trump, Putin or a Xi) runs hot, the Secretary-General can quietly defuse localized crises and facilitate transactional compromises that keep the global machinery humming.

3. "Agile Interdependence": The Evolution of Functional Cooperation

 The era of "weaponized interdependence" is undeniably here. The dividing lines between security and functional cooperation have blurred, with semiconductors, AI, oceans, space, and rare-earth supply chains acting as the new battlefields.

Yet, there is profound cause for optimism here: the sheer cost of decoupling is acting as a modern form of deterrence. 

Complete economic bifurcation is impossible. While universal bodies like the WTO or WHO face immense pressure, functional cooperation is not dying; it is becoming more agile and modular. We are witnessing the rise of "coalitions of the willing," public-private partnerships, and issue-specific agreements. Superpowers may fight over quantum computing, but they remain functionally tethered by the undeniable need to manage climate change, stabilize global debt, and secure food supply chains. 

This "weaponized interdependence" forces a cautious pragmatism: adversaries must cooperate on planetary survival.

4. Pluralism: The Healthy Democratization of Power 

The fracturing of the globe into distinct blocs is often viewed cynically as a march toward war. However, the rise of the SCO, the expansion of BRICS, the EU and the cementing of the Quad represent a genuine, long-overdue democratization of global power.

For the first time in centuries, middle powers like India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria, South Africa, and and other democracies have the agency to choose, balance, and demand better terms from both Washington and Beijing (Moscow is losing influence). This multipolarity introduces critical "institutional shock absorbers" into the global system. By engaging in multiple, overlapping regional forums, middle powers are actively preventing a binary, zero-sum showdown between the US and China. 

They are forcing the superpowers to compete through investment, diplomacy, and development rather than sheer military coercion.

Conclusion: A Pragmatic Renaissance 

The universal, idealistic multilateralism envisioned in 1945 is indeed transitioning, but what is replacing it is not a descent into chaos. We are moving toward a mature, transactional balance-of-power politics that acknowledges the Thucydides Trap and actively works to defuse it.

To embrace this new era is not to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic; it is to build a more seaworthy vessel. By accepting the limits of the P5, embracing the agility of modular cooperation, and empowering the pluralism of the Global South, we can construct a robust architecture of mutual survival. The new global order will be less poetic and more hard-nosed, but in its brutal realism lies the greatest hope for sustaining peace in the 21st century.

The UN Pact for the Future

 

The UN Pact for the Future was adopted in September 2024.

The Five Core Pillars 

The Pact is organized into five "tracks," each containing specific actions to move from rhetoric to implementation:

1. Sustainable Development & Financing: A radical push to reform the "International Financial Architecture." It aims to give the Global South a greater voice in the IMF and World Bank and to close the $4 trillion annual investment gap for development.

2. International Peace & Security: A commitment to revitalize the UN’s role in conflict prevention. Crucially, it includes the most significant language on Security Council Reform in decades, specifically prioritizing the under-representation of Africa.

3. Science, Technology, and Innovation: Ensuring that the benefits of tech are shared globally. It addresses the "digital divide" and sets the stage for the first global standards on emerging risks like lethal autonomous weapons.

4. Youth & Future Generations: Transitioning from "short-termism" to "long-termism." It establishes a dedicated Declaration on Future Generations to ensure that current political decisions account for those not yet born.

5. Transforming Global Governance: The overarching goal is to make the UN "fit for purpose"—more inclusive of civil society, regional authorities, and the private sector.

Is it possible to reform the United Nations and bring back its key peace role?

A few decision-makers and intellectuals think that the political UN -- read "political", I am not talking about the specialised agencies ---  is something of the XX century, that has lost its relevance and must be re-created or re-invented taking into account the world's new realities. Meaning, they think that the UN secretariat and its departments, as well as the UN Security Council, are unreformable and must be reinvented, taking into consideration the Global South, the new and the emerging superpowers, the increasing role of the regional associations of states, the power of those trillionaire individuals controlling the key social platforms, and also the expectations of the peoples in different parts of the world.

For them, global issues outside peace and security, economic inequalities and human rights, should be dealt either by the specialised agencies or by ad-hoc international conferences and their specific processes. 

Guterres writes about the dramatic financial situation of Peacekeeping missions worldwide

 

10 October 2025 | Worldwide | Secretary-General

Contingency Plan Letter to Staff Members Dear Colleagues,   I am writing to update you on the financial status of United Nations peacekeeping operations and what it means for us all.   Our peacekeeping operations are facing an extremely difficult financial situation. The current liquidity crisis is the direct result of arrears and the non-payment of assessed contributions in full and on time. Over the past few years, we have actively engaged with Member States to find solutions to this growing challenge. As a result, the United Nations General Assembly in 2019 and 2022 approved some measures that have enabled us to deal with the operational impact of late or non-payments. However, while the level of peacekeeping budgets has been steadily declining, the outstanding contributions have increased significantly, especially in recent months. At the start of this peacekeeping budget cycle on 1 July 2025, arrears amounted to US$2.066 billion. Our collections for the financial period may fall short by about US$880 million, putting a further strain on our liquidity situation.   In addition to actively engaging with Member States, we introduced measures in 2024 to restrict spending and align it with cash inflows. Thanks to these measures, and your dedication and commitment, and the generosity of troop- and police-contributing countries, we have managed to carry on. The troop- and police-contributing countries are, in effect, financing the system, waiting many months and sometimes over a year for reimbursement of their personnel and equipment costs. This is unsustainable. The margin of manoeuvre gained from earlier liquidity measures approved by the General Assembly, as well as our own spending restrictions, is now exhausted. Despite recent positive news that a sizeable amount from a major contributor will be entirely available to distribute flexibly across the peacekeeping missions and to establish a reserve for the United Nations Support Office in Haiti (UNSOH), the reality remains: the overall shortfall is grave.   In a context of deep uncertainty and a worsening cash position, I asked all peacekeeping missions funded under the peacekeeping budget to prepare contingency plans based on possible reductions of 15 to 25 per cent of their expenditures. Troop- and police-contributing countries were also informed, together with the relevant host countries. I am grateful to our missions for working hard over the past few months to prepare these different scenarios.   Based on our current financial estimates and after a careful review, I have decided to request all peacekeeping missions funded under the peacekeeping budget to implement their contingency plans for a 15 per cent reduction in expenditures, the lower of the two scenarios. These reductions will affect all areas: uniformed components, civilian personnel and operations. Separately, the United Nations Support Office in Somalia (UNSOS) will be required to achieve a 25 per cent reduction in expenditures within the current fiscal year, reflecting unique budgetary pressures that will need to be addressed in close coordination with the African Union.   These reductions must now be achieved within the remaining nine months of the budget period. Therefore, the impact on the reduction of capacities — and thus on operations and mandated activities — will be proportionally greater. The consequences will be painful. With the exception of UNSOS, we will need to repatriate around 25 per cent of the uniformed personnel and their equipment in the coming months. Peacekeeping operations — together with the Department of Peace Operations and other relevant departments — have carefully identified the contingents and individual uniformed personnel that should be repatriated.   On 7 October 2025, I briefed the members of the United Nations Security Council and the troop- and police-contributing countries on the contingency plans. We will continue to update them on the implementation and impact on our operations.   Repatriating around 25 per cent of troops and police in the space of a few months will be a major and complex logistical exercise.   The impact on civilian, international and locally recruited staff and affiliate personnel will be significant. Some separations will be inevitable, and missions will soon need to invoke the downsizing policy to reduce their civilian staffing, in consultation with staff representative bodies. I know the impact on affected staff, personnel and their families will be enormous, and I want to acknowledge the personal toll such measures entail.   The work of identifying which contingents and individual personnel will be repatriated has been carried out with care, weighing mandate priorities, operational requirements and, above all, the safety and security of those who will remain. While our missions carry out their contingency plans to address their funding shortfalls, they will continue to implement their mandates to the extent possible under these financial circumstances. The protection of civilians, the advancement of peace processes and support to fragile communities cannot and will not be abandoned. However, given the magnitude of the problem and the challenging context in which our missions operate, it is difficult to predict the impact on the ground. We have planned for this scenario and our staff in the field and at Headquarters will continue to work with dedication and professionalism. But this is a situation that the Organization has never faced before, and the impact remains uncertain.   I want to express my deep appreciation to all peacekeeping personnel for their service and sacrifice. I deeply understand the concerns that carrying out these plans raises, and the impact it may have on missions and personnel. Unfortunately, the Organization has no choice but to move forward with the implementation, despite the difficult impact it will have. I am determined to continue advocating for peacekeeping as a collective and shared responsibility. Without the support of Member States, the Organization cannot function properly. I will continue to appeal to all Member States to pay in full and on time so that our peacekeeping operations can remain a strong and dependable instrument of the United Nations. I remain hopeful that we will be able to resolve the current liquidity crisis, and I will work tirelessly towards that end.   I want to, once again, thank you for undertaking your essential work with enormous strength and resilience under these very difficult circumstances. You have continued to serve in some of the world's most difficult and dangerous situations, not for recognition, but for the cause of peace. That spirit is the heart of this Organization. Together, I am confident that we can take on the challenges, uphold our values and create the opportunities needed to address our unstable and uncertain world.   Yours sincerely, Antonio Guterres

We must be able to convince

The cooperation between nations has been seriously impacted by the current crisis. Each country decided the best way to battle the pandemic was to close the borders and focus on the its domestic issues. Such an approach can somehow work if the country is wealthy with a modern, extensive, and diversified economy. Australia is a good example. Even Norway, at a much smaller case, can also be mention as an example. But every country, rich or poor, depends on international trade, investments, or development aid. These three areas have lost speed. They will take quite a bit of time to recover. But above all, we must insist that today’s and tomorrow’s world can only address the issues of recovery, peace and security, climate change, and poverty, if countries cooperate and see themselves as part of a community of nations with a common destiny. The United Nations System and all the regional arrangements must regain their credibility. The challenge in this case is to be able to lead the narrative about a better world. It must be a convincing one, based on a constructive and balanced approach. Most of the visions that are being shared are not seen as balanced. They create a lot of fear in the minds and hearts of those who control economic power and the information networks. That is the reason why they do not get to the front pages. It is time to be a bit smarter when talking about the world we all need to put in place.

Looking into the new direction

As we get ready to go into June, we must be as ambitious as possible. It is not just a question of optimism. It is not a matter of rhetoric. It is about building a better world. The pandemic has shown the key social and economic challenges we all face. It has revealed the competition and all the prejudices that exist between nations after we have spent seven decades talking about international cooperation. The option is not to keep going in that direction. The decision must be clear: to agree on the set of values that count for all of us and build the foundations of a new type of relations that are geared to promote solidarity, complementary and harmony.

The 2020 Munich Security Conference is not just about the West

Today started the 2020 edition of the Munich Security Conference (MSC). This is an important annual event, that brings together a good number of decision-makers in the fields of diplomacy and international security. It is necessary to pay attention to what is said at the conference, even if the topics that are discussed reflect a lot the German views and concerns on international instability.

This year the key topic is about a strange word that only a German mind could have invented: "Westlessness". For the organisers, this new concept captures two major fears. One is related to the perceived growing uncertainty about the future of the Western world. The other is about a retreating West, in the sense that our democracies are less and less present when it comes to addressing the key issues of the world.

I must confess I do not like the concept. I have written about the absurdity of still believing that we, the Europeans from the EU and the US, should be considered the centre of the world. It is the idea that our values are higher than those prevailing elsewhere. That’s old fashion thinking. Our values are only good if they strength our democratic institutions and keep people like the US President or the Hungarian Prime Minister within the bounds defined by the rule of law and the respect for minority opinions.

We live in a different world. There are now several centres of power, in different parts of the world. Diversity is the new feature. Regional interests are now very different from those the Europeans were used to. We recognise the new set of regional interests. But we expect every government, big or small, to follow without any ambiguity the human rights principles, as adopted by the UN, and to resolve any conflict through peaceful means. Basically, what this means is a return to the UN system, the reinforcement of its authority and the acceptance of the mechanisms that have been put in place during a good number of decades.

New forms of democracy

Some theoreticians keep saying, as they love to repeat one another, that “we live in a post-democratic world”. I disagree. Democracy is alive in many parts of our planet. The only real point is that the way it is expressed and exercised is changing fast. We live in a globalised world. National borders have lost their meaning when the issues are of a greater import. Therefore, this is a time when decisions taken within national borders must be harmonised with decisions taken by others. It is not a loss of national sovereignty or a way of undermining the democratic institutions in each country. It is simply because many issues do require a transnational response. And that’s why it is important to safeguard the authority of the multilateral organisations. Part of the democratic practise means then to be able to reach consensus.

The EU and the US

When it comes to the difficult response to the current US Administration, the EU leaders have decided to follow two lines.

First, to keep the political dialogue open. This policy dialogue should be centred on the key issues, particularly on respect for the international institutions, defence, trade and climate change. It should be based on clarity: the EU's positions should be stated without any unnecessary ambiguity.

Second, to emphasise the long term nature of the mutual relationship. Both sides have a long history of cooperation and share a number of fundamental values. That should be the basis to identify the common interests and to work together to achieve them. 

The suggestion made by some in Europe that today´s US leadership should be, as much as possible, ignored was not adopted. The EU political masters believe that a reasonable level of engagement should be cultivated.

Please do not promote social discrimination

I welcome every statement made by the political leaders, including today´s speech by the French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls, as well as Chancellor Angela Merkel´s declaration, that the Muslim citizens of our European countries should be fully respected. To discriminate against them because of the criminal actions of a handful of people would be totally unfair.

At present, one of the key issues is about making sure that an important segment of our societies is not victimised.

And this is even more important if one takes into account that many of our fellow Muslim citizens do occupy modest positions in the social ladder and are therefore less able to make their voice heard. 

The UN of the future

This year there will be a lot of ink invested on who should be the next Secretary-General of the UN. We will see many opinion pieces on the subject. My point is that the debate should be, above all, on the kind of UN we need to have in the future. The choice of its next leader would be then the second layer of the debate. In both cases, we have to be clear about what is possible and try to push the agenda as far as that.