Can the United Nations Ever Reform Without Giving Power Away?
September 2026. The UN General Assembly filled up again, the way it does every year. Plenary hall packed. Motorcades backed up along First Avenue. A theme printed on a banner nobody outside the building will remember by October: “Restoring trust, managing transformation.”
High-Level Week wrapped up at the start of this week. The delegates have gone home. The banner’s probably already down. Which makes this the right moment to ask what, if anything, survived the trip back to the airport.
A few days before it started, Secretary-General António Guterres stood at a podium and said the sentence Secretaries-General don’t usually say out loud. “Power is shifting,” he told the room. “The world is changing. And our institutions must change with it.”
He went further. The institutions we have, he said, still reflect the power relations of decades ago. “Most of them at the end of the Second World War.” Then: “There must be a redistribution of power.”
A Secretary-General, standing in front of the five countries that each hold a permanent Security Council veto, telling them redistribution is essential. That took something. I’ll give him that.
So here’s the question worth still asking, now that the room has emptied out: What actually got redistributed?
Behind the speeches sits a concrete reform plan, the UN80 Initiative. Its own progress papers answered that question quietly, weeks before anyone showed up in New York.
One proposal talked about “locating regional capacities more systematically in the premises of Regional Commissions.” Plain language: move some staff into buildings the UN already owns, in Addis Ababa, Bangkok, Beirut, Santiago, Geneva. Host peace advisors there. Build coordination “platforms” between them.
It’s a plan to move desks. Not a plan to move power. I don’t think that’s an accident.
Here’s what makes it worth more than one week’s headlines, though. Those five buildings aren’t proposals. They already exist. Full commissions, full staff, decades of institutional memory, doing mostly economic reporting nobody outside the UN system has ever read. The infrastructure for something real is already built and already funded.
What’s missing isn’t capacity. It’s a mandate: real authority to hold the countries in each region accountable to international law, backed by something with actual teeth.
It’s been done before, on a smaller scale. Between 1999 and 2002, the UN ran East Timor directly. Not advised it. Ran it. Legislative authority, executive authority, judicial authority, under a single Security Council resolution, while an independence process was built underneath.
When the job was done, on schedule, the mission dissolved itself and handed over a sovereign country.
Nobody remembers that as the UN’s finest hour. It should be remembered as proof of concept: the organisation can hold real authority, temporarily and accountably, and hand it back on time, when its member states actually agree to let it.
Imagine, then, a fraction of that authority sitting permanently in five buildings that already have the lights on. Not administrations. Not occupying forces. Offices with standing to open an inquiry, publish a binding finding, refer a government to the courts that already exist to prosecute it.
No need to ask the capital under investigation for permission first.
Power that answers to something, closer to where harm actually happens than a chamber in New York where five votes can end a conversation before it starts.
Get Azhar Ali Iqbal’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Is that naive? Probably.
In the way most honest questions about power usually are. Ask any capital whether it wants a regional office with real authority over its own conduct, and the answer, dressed up in careful diplomatic language, will still be no. Power rarely volunteers to be checked.
That’s not the naive part, to my mind. The naive part would be expecting power to hand off real accountability without being asked for it, loudly and specifically, by people who noticed the gap between the speech and the plan.
Every institution, every government, every person who’s ever held a sliver of power over someone else, knows the difference between rearranging what’s visible and giving away what’s real.
One is safe. It photographs well.
The other one actually costs you something you’ll miss. Reform tends to pick the first, call it the second, and hope nobody checks the receipts.
Most of what real reform would take here is dormant capacity, not missing capacity. That’s the pattern worth noticing, in this reform and in most that came before it. The shortage is rarely resources or ideas. It’s the will to let go of exactly enough control that the letting go means something.
It’s simple, on paper. Nobody’s done it yet.
“Reform that costs the reformer nothing isn’t reform. It’s rebranding.”
— Azhar Ali Iqbal
That’s where I left this argument a week ago, before the delegates had even landed. Now the week is over. Worth checking the prediction against what people who actually sat through the whole thing saw.
The verdict wasn’t kind. Shocking, I know. One postmortem, published as the closing gavel came down, put it plainly: UN80 reform is “driven by cuts rather than impact,” and the cuts are “falling where resistance is weakest.” Junior staff. Field offices. The people with the least power to say no.
Meanwhile, the actual seats of power stay exactly where they were. Another read of the same week called it deja vu: “same concerns, same distractions, same outcome” as last year, with next year’s agenda already half-written before this one had even adjourned.
I wish I could report that I’d been wrong to expect that. I wasn’t, and this isn’t really about being right. It’s an old story for the UN, and for most institutions asked to reform themselves: the people with the power to redistribute it are also the only people with the power to decide whether the redistribution actually happens.
The Secretary-General said the word out loud this year: redistribution. That’s more honesty than these gatherings usually manage, and it shouldn’t be waved away as nothing.
Words said in front of the room that holds the veto have a way of becoming harder to un-say later, even when nobody acts on them yet. It’s easy to say a hard word in a room like that. It’s harder to mean it, and harder still to be held to it once the room has emptied out.
Whether it ever becomes more than a word, or just another desk, moved to a nicer building, with better air conditioning and the same locked doors, depends on whether anyone’s still asking by the time next year’s banner goes up.
You do the math on how many people usually still are.
