The UN’s decline is a choice

World leaders are gathering at the United Nations this week for the annual high-level meeting of the General Assembly. Many are using their speeches to emphasize their belief in multilateralism and call for greater international cooperation to resolve global threats. As the race heats up to select a new UN Secretary-General, their words will ring hollow if they do not put some real political and financial backing behind the world organization. Everyone agrees that the UN is in political and financial distress. The Trump administration cut off most U.S. funding for its work last year, forcing it to shrink its peace operations and reduce aid to millions of people. In a period of geopolitical turbulence, the veto powers in the Security Council — including the U.S., China and Russia — have stopped it acting on wars from Ukraine to Myanmar.But while it is easy for other governments to blame Washington, Moscow and Beijing for the UN’s woes, few have rushed forward to help the ailing institution. Many European governments, understandably prioritizing defense and domestic spending, have also cut development and humanitarian aid. And though ambassadors in New York lament the Security Council’s failings, many states either push out the UN — as in the case of Mali, Sudan and Ethiopia — or prefer to work through smaller clubs like the G7 and BRICS outside the world body. After BRICS leaders held their own summit in Delhi earlier this month, key leaders from the bloc — including India’s Narendra Modi and South Africa’s Cyril Ramaphosa — are all choosing to skip the General Assembly. Chinese President Xi Jinping is visiting Washington this week to see President Trump, but as of now is not expected to make the short trip to the UN. Neither is Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney, who has been working hard to mobilize middle powers to work more closely on defense and multilateral cooperation.If some governments bear particular blame for the poor state of the organization, it is ultimately a collective action problem. Almost everyone is happy to say they believe in the UN. Too few act on it. There are exceptions. Spain has increased its aid spending in contrast to many EU peers. Brazil has tried to drive forward cooperation on climate change. France and Saudi Arabia led a push for more UN members to recognize Palestine last year. Multilateral diplomacy is not dead, but those states that want to reinforce the UN system are still swimming against the tide of global politics.Some diplomats blame the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, for failing to provide the sort of inspirational leadership that would boost governments’ trust in the institution. This criticism is partially justified. Guterres has attempted to engineer better international coordination around issues including Artificial Intelligence. But he has not played a role in crisis diplomacy or mediation in many conflicts, even as the number of wars worldwide has risen to post-1945 records. Guterres says frankly that the UN lacks the political leverage to broker peace deals. He is happy to let other actors, be it the African Union in Africa or Pakistan in the Persian Gulf, lead as peacemakers. In some cases, this is a sound strategy. But it has left the UN looking very passive.It is possible that the UN will change course. Guterres will step down at the end of this year, and the Security Council is considering who should replace him. The winner is not yet clear. Some diplomats fear that the veto powers that dominate the Council discussion will purposefully choose a “secretary” rather than a “general”: A political light-weight who will take their orders. Some nonetheless hope that Guterres’s successor will make a greater effort to prevent and end conflicts. But if small and middle powers want to see the next UN chief establish a more effective role in crisis management, they cannot leave it to her or him alone. Instead, UN members will need to offer political support — and where necessary extra funds — to back UN peace initiatives.Ultimately, the selection of a new Secretary-General is an opportunity to bolster the UN system, but the decisive question over the organization’s future is whether governments are willing to rally around the institution. In cutting funding to the UN last year, President Trump complained that the U.S. was being asked to bear too big a part of the burden of international cooperation. Other leaders should take him seriously. Reviving the UN is not just a matter of selecting a new leader or calling on big powers to take their global duties seriously. Instead, it is necessary for the wider UN membership to back up their speeches with action, cash and political capital.Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition