The United Nations’ long road to restoring trust

Why in the News

The 81st United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) held its high-level week under the theme “Restoring Trust, Managing Transformation: a UN that delivers for all”. The word “restoring” concedes that trust in the UN has collapsed, and global surveys confirm the fall.

Why does trust matter to the UN, and how far has it fallen?

1. Why the UN exists: Set up after the Second World War, the UN makes states’ conduct more predictable through dialogue and international law, like agreed rules in a game rivals play.
2. What went wrong: Over three decades, the UN went from building trust between parties in peacebuilding to needing to restore trust in itself.
3. Falling confidence: Edelman Trust and Pew surveys found declining trust. In a UN Foundation poll, 52 per cent want deep structural reform, saying the UN struggles to deliver.
4. Doubts on leadership: Only 58 per cent think the UN can lead on global problems (Rockefeller Foundation and Focaldata poll), possibly a historic low.
5. The takeaway: The UN’s authority rests on states and publics trusting it, so falling trust weakens its ability to broker peace.

What are the four reasons for the loss of trust?

1. Security Council deadlock: UN Security Council (UNSC) paralysis eroded the Assembly’s trust, so it passed resolution A/76/262 requiring permanent members to explain each veto.
2. Integrity and oversight gaps: Scandals were blamed on individuals, and systemic accountability was seldom addressed:
   • a procurement scandal in Afghanistan (2013);
   • sexual exploitation and abuse cases involving peacekeepers (2017);
   • contracts for non-existent housing projects in Ghana and India (2021).
3. Donor capture: A few countries give extra-budgetary grants, voluntary money outside the regular budget, and use them to place their nationals and back cherry-picked programmes:
   • the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), the UN’s top financial watchdog, found one government sponsoring eight of nine experts in one agency;
   • spending data reach donor governments, not beneficiary publics;
   • fear of upsetting donors has made staff risk-averse on conflict prevention.
4. Global South under-representation: Most programmes run in the Global South, where trust is higher, but power sits elsewhere:
   • developing nations hold 84 per cent of the world’s population but 44 per cent of UN civil service leadership posts;
   • only a third of UN leaders in Africa are African, and two-fifths of UN headquarters cities are in the Global South;
   • posts moved out of New York and Geneva in 2025 to cut costs largely bypassed Global South cities.

Where does the UN still deliver, and where does it fall short?

1. Humanitarian reach: The UN aided and protected 98 million people in 2025-26. Aid quality and funds reaching local actors remain weak.
2. Tactical wins: In the wars in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran, the UN kept Black Sea grain exports flowing and prevented a Red Sea oil spill.
3. Peacemaking gap: It could not turn that goodwill into mechanisms for belligerents to talk, because peacemaking initiative is centralised at the top of the bureaucracy.

Challenges

1. Costless vetoes: Explaining a veto carries no penalty, so permanent members keep blocking action. Eg. Ukraine and Gaza.
2. Liquidity crisis: Unpaid assessed contributions, members’ compulsory dues, deepen dependence on earmarked donor funds.
3. Weak accountability: No independent system holds senior managers answerable for systemic failures.
4. Minilateralism: States bypass the UN for smaller groupings. Eg. the Quad, BRICS.

Way Forward

1. Public transparency: UN entities should publish programme spending to beneficiary publics, not only to donors.
2. People-centred ties: The UN should rebuild ties with people, not only governments.
3. Equitable staffing: The Secretariat should set Global South leadership targets and relocate posts to Global South hubs.
4. Decentralised peacemaking: The Secretary-General should let field envoys open talks without waiting for headquarters.

Conclusion

The UN’s crisis of trust stems less from failed delivery than from how it is governed: who decides, who pays and who answers for failure. Whether the promised “transformation” opens UN leadership and finances to the Global South will decide if trust returns.

About UN Security Council reform

1. G4 bid: India, Brazil, Japan and Germany seek expansion of both permanent and non-permanent seats.
2. Amendment hurdle (Article 108): An amendment needs two-thirds of the Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of members, including all five permanent members.
3. Rival blocs: The Uniting for Consensus group, including Pakistan, Italy and Mexico, wants only non-permanent seats added. Africa’s Ezulwini Consensus seeks at least two permanent seats with veto.
4. Stalled talks: The 2026 session of the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) ended without consensus on a framework for expansion.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026] Which of the following international conventions have NOT been ratified by India? 1. Employment Policy Convention 2. Abolition of Forced Labour Convention 3. International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families 4. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 5. Convention on Reduction of Statelessness (a) 2 and 4 (b) 1 and 2 (c) 3 and 4 only (d) 3, 4 and 5”