As the international system struggles to generate solutions with the scale and ingenuity required to control soaring geopolitical risk, a new Secretary-General will need to take office with clear-eyed priorities for where the UN can uniquely deliver value to Member States and ordinary people.

Here are eight mission-critical areas they will find in their inbox.

1. Peace and Security

With war and violence rising, the UN must restore its vigor for peacemaking as a core purpose. A new Secretary-General will need to take diplomatic risks, engage in courageous diplomacy when the UN Security Council is stuck, and make full use of tools for dispute resolution, good offices, and political creativity. This should be twinned with bold efforts to streamline and refocus the UN’s humanitarian role.

The Secretary-General can also tap a General Assembly that is increasingly ready to exert its authorities when the Security Council is at an impasse. The risk of renewed proliferation — both nuclear and beyond — must also be high on the agenda.

2. Development and Shared Prosperity

Continuing the trend begun under the Guterres administration, the UN should focus its development efforts on catalytic support to countries, stepping aside where other actors (governments, business, or civil society) are better positioned. The UN can also champion economic opportunities for the young countries and young people who need them most.

A new Secretary-General will need to set out a vision to breathe life into the Sustainable Development Goals ahead of the SDG Summit in 2027 and for their succession as the 2030 deadline draws near.

3. The Global Economy

A fracturing economic order defined by protectionism, debt crises, and variable geometry needs new navigational tools. While the UN cannot match the firepower of the international financial institutions or the G20, the next Secretary-General can demonstrate the UN’s added value as the only forum with the legitimacy needed to promote a more resilient and equitable model of globalization.

The UN has the power to promote standards that safeguard the global majority, tackle structural impediments to development, and shield smaller countries from unchecked geoeconomic competition.

4. Climate, Nature, and Global Public Goods

No entity other than the UN can credibly act as custodian of our planetary life-support systems — from a stable climate and healthy oceans to global pandemic preparedness. A new Secretary-General will need to forge new coalitions capable of turning these lofty ideals into real-world strategies.

Protecting the global commons requires expanded capacity, sharper coordination, and moon-shot instincts — especially as multilateral frameworks for climate, health security, and biodiversity receive pushback.

5. Complex Crises

The 21st century is increasingly vulnerable to cascading emergencies. The global trauma of the COVID-19 pandemic has been rapidly followed by compounding food and energy shocks triggered by wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.

In a hyperconnected world, we need to prepare for more systemic, interconnected, and multidimensional shocks, whatever their trigger. This was the logic behind the proposal of the current Secretary-General for a new type of emergency platform. As new systemic shocks strike, the UN will still be the only entity with the range, reach, and agility for rapid action at scale.

6. Critical Global Infrastructure

While crisis response is vital, we must also be more proactive in addressing the systemic vulnerabilities of globalization itself. Recent disruptions at major maritime chokepoints and escalating cyber threats have exposed the fragility of the physical and digital networks on which all nations depend.

From trade routes and undersea cables to financial flows, energy grids, and food corridors, new leadership is needed from the UN to protect the “operating system” of the global economy from geopolitical disruption.

7. Artificial Intelligence and Frontier Technologies

The promise of AI and other frontier technologies must be amplified, while guardrails are developed against their greatest risks. As the one forum where all countries and sectors can have a voice, the UN has a unique role and responsibility in this crowded and contested space.

It can serve as a platform for sharing knowledge and strategies, as well as a trusted partner for the creation of new models and mechanisms to navigate risks. This will require a sea change in the UN’s ability to work with the private sector, yielding benefits in other frontier domains such as biosecurity, neurotechnology, and quantum computing.

8. Moral and Normative Leadership

The UN must reclaim the moral and normative leadership the world needs, while reviving the bias to action and diplomatic creativity that characterized its early years.

By cutting through the noise of a polarized world to champion fundamental principles, the next Secretary-General can provide a North Star for human dignity and rights.

Across these and other missions, the next Secretary-General should signal a sea change in how the UN mobilizes the best talent, from inside the UN system and beyond.

The UN should not seek to execute its missions alone. Instead, the Secretary-General can be a convener and conductor of high-ambition coalitions of state and non-state actors, brokering trust where it does not exist and using shared goals to drive delivery.

This draws on Getting Real about ‘Back to Basics’ — A UN Reset for Turbulent Times, originally published by Elizabeth Cousens and Sigrid Kaag on LinkedIn.

As the multilateral system faces an unprecedented crisis of trust, researchers and thought leaders from the Global South are pushing to redefine the future of international cooperation including demanding a structural transformation of how global development and governance are conceptualized.

Here is a roundup of some recent commentary from the Southern Voice network of think tanks, exploring how to build a more inclusive and effective global order:

1 for 8 Billion: Rethinking Leadership at a Time of Multilateral Crisis (February 2026)

This piece argues that the Secretary-General selection process remains elite-driven and dominated by the Security Council’s five permanent members. Authors Margarita Gómez and Farah Munayer argue that nominating women for the role is no longer a symbolic aspiration but a strategic necessity to draw on the leadership the UN truly needs. “What limits women’s access to the most senior positions is not a lack of experience or capacity,” they write, “but the persistence of selection practices that favor continuity.”

Read more

Beyond the Old Tables: The Global South is Redefining Global Development (December 2025)

Reflecting on a gathering of over 100 thought leaders in São Paulo, authors Margarita Gómez and Rose Ngugi argue against simply rearranging seats at existing decision-making tables. They suggest that the current geopolitical uncertainty offers the Global South a rare opportunity to redefine development standards, using knowledge networks to actively redistribute global power. In a joint statement, the network committed to proactive action to shape the future of multilateralism and the post-2030 global sustainable development framework.

Read more

From the Ground Up: Harnessing Collective Intelligence for Inclusive Change in the Global South (September 2025)

Megan Ballesty advocates for the use of collective intelligence to tackle multidimensional challenges. Highlighting a United Nations Development Programme initiative in Guatemala where farmers co-developed climate data processes, the article illustrates how bringing affected communities into the design process allows legitimate, robust solutions to emerge from the ground up.

Read more

The Threshold of a New World Order (July 2025)

This article, written by Gabriela Keseberg Dávalos, contrasts the geopolitical anxiety gripping the Global North with the sense of opportunity emerging in the Global South. Keseberg Dávalos points to the four consecutive Global South G20 presidencies (Indonesia, India, Brazil, South Africa) as a clear indicator of a shifting world order that is rightly prioritizing such issues as climate change and social equality.

Read more

Global South Insights for a Changing World (May 2025)

In this introduction to the Global South Perspectives publication, authors Estefanía Charvet and Pablo Ignacio Soto-Mota analyze how rapid AI advancement, trade agreements, and other global systemic issues often inadvertently impose significant burdens on developing economies. They call for knowledge pluralism to challenge one-size-fits-all development models created in the Global North.

Read more

Southern Voice: Showing Leadership in Turbulent Times (July 2024)

This piece by Gabriela Keseberg Dávalos reflects on the evolution and guiding principles of the Southern Voice network: courage, adaptability, and collaboration. It highlights how Global South think tanks are proactively shaping the future by driving their own common climate change agenda and leading conversations on the post-2030 development framework.

Read more

By Kunalika Gautam and Harshani Dharmadasa

This article was first published in its original multimedia form on Our Future Agenda. To see the full interactive version with visuals:

Read here

Seventy-nine years ago, a generation stood at the edge of independence and imagined a nation into being. They did not inherit certainty. They built it with conviction, compromise, and hope.

Today, we inherit that imagination. Our responsibility is not to preserve it. It is to evolve it.

As India approaches 100 years in 2047, the question is no longer only what India has achieved. It is what it must now become.

We are coming of age in a world that is less predictable than the one our predecessors shaped. Climate shocks disrupt lives in real time. Economic transitions create opportunity for some and uncertainty for many. Cities expand and inequalities deepen. Technology is reshaping how we think, connect, and understand truth. Geopolitics is fragmented and fast-moving, with direct consequences for everyday life.

These are not distant trends. They define the conditions in which young people are trying to build their futures. This generation is not defined by disruption alone.

We see possibility. Disruption can open space for new solutions. With foresight and courage, crises can drive reinvention. Solutions will come from many voices working together.

This belief sits at the heart of the Next Generation India Fellows initiative.

With 734 million citizens under 30, India is home to nearly one in ten young people globally. As the world’s largest democracy and a G20 leader, India’s choices will shape its own future and influence what development and opportunity look like for young people everywhere.

Over the past two years, the Next Generation India Fellows, supported by the United Nations Foundation and the Council on Energy, Environment and Water, have worked to turn this moment into a forward-looking agenda.

This effort resulted in Our Future India, a youth-informed roadmap for India at 100. The report explores how to build a developed, inclusive, and future-ready democracy aligned with the ambition of Viksit Bharat 2047.

From disruption to direction

The report starts from a clear insight. The future will be shaped by how we respond to disruption. Five major forces are already reshaping India’s trajectory. These include climate volatility, technological change, shifts in work, governance pressures, and changes in global power. The report does not treat these as risks alone. It examines how they can be turned into opportunities through foresight, innovation, and inclusion, and along practical pathways:

• Quick wins that can be implemented in the near term

• Longer-term ideas that require testing, coordination, and sustained effort

These are designed as concrete actions for policymakers, institutions, and communities.

Three ideas to future-proof India

Across these areas, three institutional ideas stand out:

1. A Ministry of Future Affairs to embed long-term thinking in policy

2. A Youth Advisory Council to the Prime Minister to integrate young voices into decision-making

3. A Mission LiFE Youth Ambassador Programme to mobilize young people as leaders in sustainable living

These proposals focus on aligning governance with a young and fast-changing society.

What comes next

The past 79 years were about building a nation. The next 21 will shape what that nation stands for. India’s future will depend on whether institutions can listen, adapt, and act at the pace this moment requires. For our generation, the question is not whether change is coming.

It is whether we will shape it. And whether we will take responsibility for the India we choose to build.

About the Our Future India roadmap

The report was built with young people across India and the global diaspora. The Fellows engaged over 1,850 voices from across India and its diaspora through consultations, surveys, and expert interviews.

The Fellows also consulted more than 60 experts across over 30 institutions spanning civil society, government, academia, and the diaspora. The result is a set of priorities grounded in lived experience.

About Our Future Agenda

Our Future Agenda is a United Nations Foundation program dedicated to putting young people — especially from young countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America — at the heart of global decision-making and solving the world’s biggest challenges.

Learn more: www.ourfutureagenda.org

This article was first published in its original multimedia form on Our Future Agenda. To experience the full version with its original visual and interactive elements:

Read here

In 1945, as the world emerged from the devastation of the Second World War, nations came together determined to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” On October 24 of that year, the UN Charter entered into force, establishing an institution grounded in international law and collective responsibility. Eighty years later, the UN is confronting a very different test of whether it can adapt fast enough to remain effective.

The UN80 initiative is best understood in this light, as an attempt to rethink how the system functions at a moment when expectations are rising, resources are constrained, and geopolitical consensus is harder to sustain. This effort is organized around three workstreams: improving efficiencies, revisiting mandates, and realigning structures.

UN80 taps into a longer-running push to modernize how the UN operates, through better data systems, shared platforms, streamlined processes, and more deliberate investment in workforce capabilities. All of these approaches aim to help address long-standing problems of fragmentation in delivery and chronic underfunding. A more efficient UN is more coherent and more impactful for people on the ground, particularly at the country level where multiple agencies often operate in parallel.

To Cut or Not to Cut?

Part of UN80 entails cost-cutting across the system, which is ultimately decided through the various administrative and budgetary functions of the UN, such as the Fifth Committee and ACABQ, among others. Yet, there is also a limit to what efficiencies alone can achieve. They may reap savings but in themselves don’t improve how the system works or whether the system is setting convincing priorities.

A System Built of Mandates

That is where the question of mandates comes in. Over its 80 years, the UN has accumulated nearly 4,000 active mandates, some overlapping, others no longer aligned with current realities. This has created a system where responsibilities are diffused and accountability is often unclear. The UN80 process, through the Informal Ad-hoc Working Group on Mandate Review, opens an inclusive space for Member States to revisit this question and in particular ask how mandates can be better designed and implemented.

This is an inherently political terrain. Looking at the future mandate creation, implementation, and review means exercising discipline and prioritizing outcomes. And without some degree of mandate discipline, even the most sophisticated gains in efficiency risk being absorbed into an already overloaded system.

How Many Angels?

Beyond mandates lies a more difficult conversation about the structures of the UN, and scope for realignment and consolidation across its dozens of agencies, programs, and funds. If the system is to deliver effectively, it may need to be organized differently. Structural realignment raises questions that go to the core of how the UN operates, including how roles are distributed across entities, how authority is exercised across headquarters and the field, and how funding and governance reinforce, or undermine, systemwide objectives. These are even more political questions and are unlikely to be resolved quickly. But without some adjustment to structure, the system risks continuing to reproduce fragmentation and eroding its capacity to deliver for the people it is intended to serve.

What makes UN80 notable is that these three workstreams on efficiencies, mandates, and structural realignment are moving forward together, even if unevenly. Efficiencies are advancing because they are largely within Member States’ control. Mandates are being discussed because of growing recognition that the system is overstretched. Structural questions are emerging more cautiously from the Secretariat, but they are increasingly difficult to avoid. The UN80 initiative, therefore, suggests a shift from viewing reform as a series of isolated fixes toward seeing it as a broader question of system design and systems thinking.

There is also an opportunity to bring a stronger futures-thinking lens into how these reforms are shaped.

While the current focus is on fixing existing inefficiencies, inherited mandates, and legacy structures, the real test is whether the UN system is being positioned for the kinds of risks and uncertainties that lie ahead. This includes strengthening foresight capabilities, integrating long-term risk analysis into decision-making, and creating space for more adaptive approaches to policy and programming. For younger generations, whose time horizon extends beyond current political cycles, the credibility of the UN will increasingly depend on its ability not just to respond to crises, but also to anticipate and prepare for them.

The political context will ultimately shape UN80’s prospects. While Member States remain in the driver’s seat, the Secretary-General and UN leaders have substantial capacity to inform and influence the process. At the end of the day, UN80 is a political process, not a technical one, with progress depending on whether there is sufficient courage and ambition around the need for change. In a more fragmented international environment, that alignment cannot be taken for granted.

At 80 years, the UN is being asked to demonstrate that it can evolve. For younger generations, whether as citizens, policymakers, or activists, the question is not whether multilateralism matters in principle, but whether it works in practice. A UN that can operate more efficiently, act on clearer mandates, and organize itself around real outcomes would go some way toward answering that question.

About Our Future Agenda

Our Future Agenda is a United Nations Foundation program dedicated to putting young people — especially from young countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America — at the heart of global decision-making and solving the world’s biggest challenges.

Learn more: www.ourfutureagenda.org

This article was first published on the UN Foundation website. To explore the full interactive version, including visuals and the complete Decoded experience:

Read here

Picture a future where world leaders make the right choices – where cooperation leads to real change, from tackling the climate crisis to reducing inequality and creating lasting peace. A future where young people are at the center of decision-making, driving progress in education, jobs, climate solutions, and other areas, especially in regions like Asia and Africa where over half the population is under 30.

At the 2024 Summit of the Future, world leaders adopted several new agreements with transformational potential. Taken together, the Pact for the Future, its annexes, represent an opportunity to rekindle hope and optimism for our common future, allowing us to imagine what our world could look like if we get it right.

Pact for the Future: Decoded

Young people deserve to be fully informed and engaged in global decisions that affect their lives and future. Pact Decoded provides interactive, easy-to-understand summaries of the key agreements made by world leaders at the Summit of the Future.

Here’s a snapshot of the key agreements summarized in the Pact Decoded series:

• Pact for the Future: This groundbreaking plan, crafted by world leaders, aims to address climate change, inequality, and other pressing global issues while inspiring hope for a brighter tomorrow. It outlines 56 bold actions to ensure that no one is left behind and serves as a rallying cry for global cooperation, reminding us that together, we can build a more fair and peaceful world for generations to come.

• Declaration on Future Generations: This bold vision aims to protect the rights of future generations and take urgent action against both current and upcoming challenges facing people and the planet. It’s a reminder that our choices today shape the world of tomorrow. Think of it as passing the baton in a relay race – we must ensure that the next generation inherits a safe, just, and opportunity-filled world.

• Global Digital Compact: This agreement seeks to connect everyone to the digital world, ensuring that no one is excluded from the tech revolution. It also addresses the challenges posed by technology, such as privacy concerns and the ethical use of artificial intelligence. Imagine it as building bridges across the internet, enabling people from every corner of the globe to join the online community and harness the benefits of technology.

• Political Declaration on Antimicrobial Resistance: This declaration calls for immediate action against a critical health threat that could turn even simple infections into life-threatening conditions. It advocates for a united approach to combat AMR by emphasizing prevention, improved health practices, and responsible use of medicines. Picture a world where antibiotics fail; this declaration is our commitment to making sure that doesn’t happen.

With Pact Decoded, we want to make it easier to understand the global agreements shaping our world. Dive into each installment to reimagine how the UN thinks, plans, and acts for the future. Together, we can turn these commitments into action that benefits all generations.

About Our Future Agenda

Our Future Agenda is a United Nations Foundation program dedicated to putting young people — especially from young countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America — at the heart of global decision-making and solving the world’s biggest challenges.

Learn more: www.ourfutureagenda.org

History shows that geopolitical stress need not freeze global cooperation — it can also drive innovation. While “wrecking ball” politics is putting the foundations of the multilateral system under unprecedented strain, its effects may be better approached as what Joseph Schumpeter described as “creative destruction.”

Schumpeter, writing during the war from which the UN was born, believed that a “gale” of destruction could create new structures, even as it destroyed old ones. Today, the next UN Secretary-General will find that, even as an old order is dismantled, demand for a new one is surprisingly high.

Citizens and governments generally support global cooperation and generally have a clear view of what it is supposed to deliver. However, for some time well before the disruptions of the past year, they have been skeptical that formal multilateral machinery is up to the task.

That gap creates a strategic opportunity for the UN and other bedrock institutions to reassert their core purpose while developing a new playbook for agile and hard-nosed cooperation in a turbulent age.

From Blue Helmets to the Black Sea

As we navigate today’s geopolitical friction, we can learn from how the multilateral system has previously improvised solutions, especially when the formal machinery jams.

Take the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the entrepreneurial UN Secretary-General U Thant helped the Soviet Union and United States climb back from the atomic brink. He had no mandate, instructions, or permission, but he saw an opportunity for diplomatic creativity to defuse the most dangerous flashpoint of the nuclear age and took it. Every time the Cold War came close to turning hot, the international system played a circuit-breaking role, especially in the hands of adroit leaders.

Or consider UN peacekeepers. Peacekeeping isn’t in the UN Charter but it was invented on the fly by Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld to help solve the Suez Crisis in 1956. The fix was so urgent at the time that the first peacekeepers wore borrowed helmets spray-painted blue. Since then, UN boots on the ground have helped stabilize war-torn settings around the world, saved millions of lives, and cut the risk of civil wars recurring by more than half.

The eradication of smallpox by 1980 was also achieved through innovation: a campaign inspired by a Soviet proposal, backed by American money and expertise, that succeeded because a Brazilian-led World Health Organization provided the platform to sustain a worldwide effort. The return on investment was staggering. The United States spent just $32 million globally on a permanent solution to a disease that had previously cost that much every month, simply to keep smallpox outside of its own borders.

Fast-forward to the UN’s Global Crisis Response Group, created to tackle the global economic fallout from Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The UN was able to stand up an immediate response despite Security Council gridlock, mobilize a coalition of nontraditional partners, and then disband as soon as the work was done. The resulting Black Sea Grain Initiative is credited with saving up to 100 million lives by stabilizing global food prices. It is just one example of the type of “pop-up” multilateralism that will be increasingly needed to deal with shocks to fragile global systems.

A New Playbook

These successes, and many others, share a DNA: They demonstrate that when geopolitical tensions run high, the international system can mobilize to deliver results.

Drawing inspiration from experience, we can begin to construct a playbook for our age of geopolitical turbulence. Here are six lessons to start.

1. Don’t wait for approval

The multilateral system defaults to inaction when powers disagree, as today’s record low output from the Security Council shows. But even when the door is locked, creative diplomats can open a window. Consider again the war in Ukraine, when Zaporizhzhia, Europe’s largest nuclear power plant, became an active combat zone. Instead of waiting for instructions, an enterprising team from the International Atomic Energy Agency leveraged the body’s technical authority to send inspectors across an active war zone front line and establish a monitoring presence that remains to this day.

2. Set goals that drive action

Don’t underestimate the galvanizing power of a well-designed goal. Eradicating smallpox was the ultimate surgical strike: a clear finish line for a vast network of public health actors. Yet even more aspirational goals can spur change. The multilateral push for girls’ education in the 2000s provided a measurable catalyst that enrolled 180 million more girls into schools worldwide, even in a diffuse sector. The concept of “net zero” — for all the political friction it has generated — gave a sprawling global economic transition a single organizational concept. Arguably, no two other words in history have been as influential at changing decisions or reallocating capital, with more than $2.3 trillion directed toward the low-carbon energy transition in 2025 alone. Get the goal right, and you don’t need an institution to direct the traffic; the target itself becomes the organizing principle.

3. Keep it simple

Global crises are complex, but solutions can be simple, and overengineered strategies often fail. Look at the trajectory of UN peacekeeping. The improvisation of the Suez Crisis gave way to sprawling and expensive missions burdened with “Christmas tree mandates.” From Mali to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, missions of this type became prey to rising costs and diminishing returns, whereas today’s security landscape demands agile, mission-specific capabilities with unambiguous exit strategies. The 1999 International Force East Timor is an early illustration of this philosophy: a targeted and time-limited effort authorized by the UN and led by Australia that mobilized necessary capabilities, stabilized the environment, and handed over control before it became a permanent fixture. Well beyond peace and security, in a world where political windows may open only briefly, the UN needs to be geared more to rapid response than to permanent presence.

4. Balance agility with investing in capabilities

Few multilateral solutions will succeed without prior investment in a threshold of core capabilities and leadership. The smallpox campaign, for example, worked only because it was built from a high-functioning World Health Organization boasting expertise, relationships, and trust. While the greatest impact has often come from problem-driven, purpose-built inventions, these have always required some bedrock of reliable capacity. The OPCW-UN Joint Mission in Syria in 2013–14 drew on the best skill and talent of two vital institutions to devise a novel mission that could dismantle a regime’s chemical weapons without establishing a permanent presence. The 1996–97 Ottawa Process leapfrogged traditional global disarmament processes to mount a successful campaign to ban land mines, but the result was eventually a treaty. The key is to focus on systems that enable agility versus those organized for routine or permanent functions.

5. Don’t be an app, be the App Store

The international system is awash with alliances, networks, and ad hoc coalitions. Given the scale of unmet demand for new types of solution, the diversity of “variable geometry” multilateralism is likely to grow. In this networked world, the UN has unparalleled convening power and a comparative advantage in being the platform that allows collaboration to happen. It and other bedrock institutions should embrace the opportunity to “crowd others in” while recognizing their unique role in setting ground rules, defining goals, aligning strategies, and mobilizing political and financial support for delivery — irrespective of who executes the work.

6. Redefine multilateral leadership

No playbook works without effective leadership to read the field and call the plays. In today’s world, we need to elevate leaders adept at navigating geopolitical fracture while bringing an innovator’s mindset to wicked problems. That means spotting fleeting openings, building uncommon coalitions, and attracting the political, financial, and human resources to deliver results. On their watch, these leaders can prove that legacy institutions can be renovated for evolving conditions and reignite new interest in multilateral solutions. International leaders will rarely have hard power, but they have unique moral and political voice to champion the value of having a system with core principles and guardrails in the first place.

The next UN Secretary-General will inherit an inbox of cascading crises and a system struggling to supply solutions, but history proves that the most effective solutions come from hard, not easy, times. A new Secretary-General can restore and remind the world of the UN’s mojo as a platform for problem-solving and be a leader who sees opportunities for progress and takes them.

In 1945, world leaders understood the stakes. They created the UN not for sentiment but for survival. Today, our choice is the same.

As the race for the next United Nations Secretary-General heats up, the stakes of the contest are high.

A succession of shocks has battered our system for international cooperation at a time when its primary sponsors are withdrawing political and financial support.

For months, world leaders have seemed to be on an accelerated march through the stages of grief — past denial and anger, and now deep into bargaining, as “wrecking ball“ politics threaten to dismantle the system from within.

Faced with a world in disarray, states are following all options to insulate themselves from geopolitical stress: de-risking where they can, pursuing strategic autonomy where they must. Many wonder openly if multilateralism — the idea that states best solve problems by working together — has flatlined.

But for all the talk of autonomy, new clubs and alignments are emerging as states seek any table that can deliver an effective hedge against risk as well as more reliable arrangements to meet individual and collective needs. Legacy institutions are also attracting renewed interest, as ad hoc upstarts such as Donald Trump’s Board of Peace spur more full-throated support for the United Nations than it has enjoyed in years.

Don’t mistake this sentiment, though, for a belief that existing institutions can meet today’s challenges. The global issues that worry leaders most — from global economic volatility and unmanaged great-power competition to artificial intelligence, galloping inequalities, and climate change — pose systemic risks that the international system, as currently configured and resourced, lacks the capacity to manage.

This is the Multilateralist’s Paradox that will greet the next Secretary-General: that the crisis isn’t lack of demand for global cooperation, but a failure of supply.

The Risk Premium

To understand why, we must accept that nostalgia is indeed not a strategy and remember why states created the modern international system in the first place.

The United Nations was designed to manage geopolitical and geoeconomic risk. Born out of the trauma of World War II, the new organization was confronted by a volatile period in which war-ravaged countries were in desperate need of reconstruction and in which ideological polarization more extreme than anything yet experienced today was quickly setting in.

As postwar evolved into Cold War, regional and proxy conflicts took a violent toll, and repeated flashpoints nearly turned the Cold War hot, most dangerously during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, when UN diplomacy helped walk superpowers back from the brink.

A very different dynamic was also emerging from the end of empire with the unprecedented birth of dozens of new nations, coming to independence with far less violence than in any previous period of state-making — a profound, if often forgotten, collective achievement, supported by UN norms and agencies.

After the Cold War, the international system became more complex, as it was tasked with new missions, including ambitious approaches to conflict, a big push on poverty reduction, additions to the global health architecture, and an attempt to generate global public goods in climate, the environment, and other areas.

During this period, multiple wars ended and millions of lives were saved.

But this period was also characterized by ahistoricism, political myopia about the extent of shared interests, and complacency that a comparatively benign geopolitical environment would last forever.

Today, as we again confront a spiking risk premium on global affairs, we need new modes and models for action that more accurately reflect the global distribution of power and interest. With multilateralism seen by many as a survival mechanism, several waves of demand are building on the horizon.

Three Waves of Demand

A first wave comes from so-called pivotal or middle powers — heavyweights in their own right with even greater leverage when they combine effort. These states are instinctively favorable toward an inclusive international system but pragmatic about any forum they believe can deliver results. We are already seeing them innovate on priorities ranging from trade to critical minerals to AI. The pace of diversification will only increase.

A second wave comes from smaller states that regard the breakdown of global rules as an existential threat. A decade ago, they saw a path, however narrow, to climate finance, debt restructuring, and investment in a shared future. With that track in jeopardy, they have a powerful need to renew collective action ahead of the next storm. No one should underestimate the influence these countries can exert.

A third wave may surprisingly come from the world’s largest powers. The United States and China are locked in a structural rivalry that will define the 21st century. They appear to have their sights set on confrontation, but paradoxically this rivalry may drive a corresponding demand for guardrails. Neither country gains from accidental war. Neither benefits if AI goes rogue. Neither profits if proxy conflicts get out of hand.

At the 2026 Munich Security Conference, it was striking to see the United States and China both touting and doubting the value of international cooperation. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the United Nations “still has tremendous potential to be a tool for good in the world” but chastised the body for lacking answers to the most important global questions. President Trump, meanwhile, has said that the newly launched Board of Peace “is going to almost be looking over the United Nations and making sure it runs properly.”

Like Rubio, his counterpart, China’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Wang Yi, expressed interest in both old and new multilateral solutions. He reaffirmed the UN as an authoritative platform for global governance but also said the actions of a “certain country” were impeding its functions. He heralded China’s own Global Governance Initiative as an alternative “compass for the giant ship of history,” at a time when China is building increasingly powerful networks of influence across the Global South and beyond.

If the appetite for cooperation is not dead, neither will it be easily satisfied. Levels of trust are low. Resources are scarce. Multilateral institutions are struggling to deliver. The paradox facing a new Secretary-General is less that they will lead an irrelevant institution than one that risks being overwhelmed or sidelined by demand it cannot supply.

Transcending the Paradox

For the UN, tackling the supply crunch requires more than rearranging the organigram, especially given the pace at which demand for multilateral solutions is accelerating.

Instead, the next Secretary-General can view surging demand as an invitation to innovate and an opening for deeper reinvention. In fact, multilateral improvisation is a time-honored tradition going back to the UN’s founding and characteristic of its most effective work. A renewed focus on core missions is one place to start, with a spur to strategic creativity around the issues on which people most expect the UN to deliver.

This article is part of the World’s Toughest Job Decoded series produced by Our Future Agenda. To experience the full multimedia version, including archival footage, visuals, and interactive storytelling:

Read here

The role of the United Nations Secretary-General sits at the center of global expectations and global frustration. It is one of the most visible positions in international affairs yet remains widely misunderstood.

Last year we spoke to hundreds of young people about the role. Many expected the Secretary-General to be a global decision-maker, someone who can intervene, direct outcomes, or resolve crises. In practice, their role is more bounded.

That gap between perception and reality shapes how people interpret the role of the United Nations itself in moments of crisis, how they judge the UN’s effectiveness, and what they expect from its leadership. It also influences how the next Secretary-General will be assessed in a period where demands on the role are increasing.

This is the gap we set out to address through the SG Decoded series.

The series is structured around four dimensions: The Role, The Selection, The Trade-offs, and The Vision.

In The Selection, we turn to the process for choosing a new Secretary-General.

One of the world’s most consequential leadership decisions is made through a process that is partly public, partly opaque, and heavily shaped by both formal procedure and informal politics. We walk through the stages of nomination, public hearings, straw polls, and final appointment, while also asking a deeper question: What kind of leader does this process tend to reward?

The answer is not always the same as what the job demands. The selection process often favors discretion, diplomatic skill, institutional credibility, and ability to manage relationships under pressure, while wider public expectations increasingly emphasize moral courage, deep listening, emotional intelligence, and long-term thinking.

About Our Future Agenda

Our Future Agenda is a United Nations Foundation program dedicated to putting young people — especially from young countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America — at the heart of global decision-making and solving the world’s biggest challenges.

Learn more: www.ourfutureagenda.org

This article is part of the World’s Toughest Job Decoded series produced by Our Future Agenda. To experience the full multimedia version, including archival footage, visuals, and interactive storytelling:

Read here

The role of the United Nations Secretary-General sits at the center of global expectations and global frustration. It is one of the most visible positions in international affairs yet remains widely misunderstood.

Last year we spoke to hundreds of young people about the role. Many expected the Secretary-General to be a global decision-maker, someone who can intervene, direct outcomes, or resolve crises. In practice, their role is more bounded.

That gap between perception and reality shapes how people interpret the role of the United Nations itself in moments of crisis, how they judge the UN’s effectiveness, and what they expect from its leadership. It also influences how the next Secretary-General will be assessed in a period where demands on the role are increasing.

This is the gap we set out to address through the SG Decoded series.

The series is structured around four dimensions: The Role, The Selection, The Trade-offs, and The Vision.

In The Trade-offs, we examine the tough decisions any Secretary-General encounters once in office.

The Secretary-General operates in a system where power is shared, consent is required, and every major decision involves competing risks. Whether to speak publicly or work quietly behind the scenes, whether to raise alarms early or wait for political space, how to balance impartiality with moral clarity, and how to coordinate a fragmented system without direct authority are not abstract tensions.

They define how the role is exercised every day. Leadership at the UN is not about executive control. It is about judgment under constraint.

About Our Future Agenda

Our Future Agenda is a United Nations Foundation program dedicated to putting young people — especially from young countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America — at the heart of global decision-making and solving the world’s biggest challenges.

Learn more: www.ourfutureagenda.org

This article is part of the World’s Toughest Job Decoded series produced by Our Future Agenda. To experience the full multimedia version, including archival footage, visuals, and interactive storytelling:

Read here

The role of the United Nations Secretary-General sits at the center of global expectations and global frustration. It is one of the most visible positions in international affairs yet remains widely misunderstood.

Last year we spoke to hundreds of young people about the role. Many expected the Secretary-General to be a global decision-maker, someone who can intervene, direct outcomes, or resolve crises. In practice, the role is more bounded.

That gap between perception and reality shapes how people interpret the role of the United Nations itself in moments of crisis, how they judge the UN’s effectiveness, and what they expect from its leadership. It also influences how the next Secretary-General will be assessed in a period where demands on the role are increasing.

This is the gap we set out to address through the SG Decoded series.

The series is structured around four dimensions: The Role, The Selection, The Trade-offs, and The Vision.

In The Vision, we ask when Secretary-General leadership has mattered most and what those moments tell us about the future.

Looking across cases from peacekeeping and development to climate diplomacy and global health, influence is often greatest before outcomes are fixed, when a crisis, moral shift, or political opening creates space to shape direction.

Vision in this role is not about grand statements or personal ambition. It is the ability to recognize a tipping point early, understand what is possible, and act in time to move cooperation forward.

About Our Future Agenda

Our Future Agenda is a United Nations Foundation program dedicated to putting young people — especially from young countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America — at the heart of global decision-making and solving the world’s biggest challenges.

Learn more: www.ourfutureagenda.org

Jump to:

AT A GLANCE • THE RACE • THE PROCESS • THE POLITICS • ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

AT A GLANCE

• Confirmed candidates: 4

• Stage: Late nominations / pre-dialogues

THE RACE

Who’s Running

• Michelle Bachelet Jeria (Chile) — nominated by Chile, Brazil, Mexico (February 2, 2026); Chile withdrew nomination March 25, 2026, but she remains nominated by Brazil and Mexico

• Rafael Grossi (Argentina) — nominated by Argentina (November 26, 2025)

• Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rica) — nominated by Costa Rica (March 3, 2026)

• Macky Sall (Senegal) — nominated by Burundi (March 2, 2026)

Withdrawals

• Virginia Gamba (Argentina) — nominated by Maldives (March 11, 2026); withdrawn March 25, 2026

THE PROCESS

1. Nomination

• Candidates can be nominated by any Member State, individually or jointly (no requirement to be nominated by their own country).

• Member States can withdraw nominations; only one candidate at a time.

• Requirements: CV, vision statement, campaign finance disclosure.

• Candidates holding UN roles must suspend them or consider doing so.

Legal Basis: UN Charter Article 97 — “Appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”

Modalities: GA Resolution 79/327 (pp. 6–8, 2025) sets timelines, eligibility, withdrawal rules, and ethics for campaigning.

See useful guides from NYU Center on International Cooperation and 1 for 8 Billion.

2. Public Campaign & Dialogues

• President of the General Assembly convenes interactive dialogues starting week of 20 April (three hours per candidate): 10-minute presentation + questions from Member States and civil society.

• Themes: leadership abilities and the UN’s three pillars (peace and security, development, and human rights).

• Candidates are also expected to engage in public events run by think tanks and civil society.

Candidates’ visibility does not equal success but shapes perception, can reveal unexpected strengths and vulnerabilities, and can shift campaign momentum for Member States and civil society alike.

3. Straw Polls (Security Council Selection)

• Informal filtering mechanism to whittle down field.

• Expected to begin by July 31.

• Multiple rounds of secret ballots: Encourage / Discourage / No Opinion.

• Candidates with too many Discourage ballots are encouraged to drop out.

• In final rounds, ballots are color-coded: P5 red ballots; E10 white ballots.

• A candidate must ultimately secure support from nine of 15 members, including the P5.

• Results are confidential but often leak within minutes.

For news on results, follow UN watchers like Security Council Report and experts Gowan, Forti, Lynch.

4. Final Appointment

• UNSC recommendation, typically by acclamation.

• GA votes by secret ballot (Rule 141).

• Term: Five years, renewable (some countries have proposed a single seven-year term).

5. Transition

• Secretary-General–designate sworn in before GA.

• First senior hires (Deputy Secretary-General, Chef de Cabinet, key Under-Secretary-General posts) reflect priorities, regional balance, and political commitments.

• Transition window: Historically one to three months.

• Day 1 in office: January 1, 2027.

THE POLITICS

The Key Decision-makers

• P5: Permanent members of the UN Security Council — China (UNSC President in May), France (September), Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States — vote and can veto.

• E10: Ten elected members of the Security Council vote but cannot veto. Bahrain (UNSC President in April), Colombia (June), Democratic Republic of the Congo (July), Denmark (August), Greece (October), Latvia (November), Liberia (December), Pakistan, Panama, Somalia.

• Security Council President: Monthly rotating chair; manages timing of straw polls (see P5 and E10 presidencies above). Judging from previous races, August (Denmark), September (France), and October (Greece) are likely to be most influential.

• General Assembly (GA): 193 Member States can nominate and vote.

• President of the General Assembly (PGA): Annalena Baerbock (steers process until mid-September 2026); next PGA from Asia-Pacific Group oversees final phase.

What Shapes the Field

1. Geography: Traditionally it’s Latin America and Caribbean’s turn, but that is not set in stone. Eastern Europe has never had a Secretary-General and was displeased at being passed over in the last cycle. See list of UN regional groups here.

2. Gender: No woman has held the office; Member States are officially encouraged to strongly consider women candidates.

3. Politics: A P5 veto is decisive; broad support across the E10 and regional groups is critical.

External Events to Watch

• IMF/World Bank Spring Meetings (April 13–19, Washington)

• G7 Summit (June 15–17, France)

• NATO Summit (July 7–8, Türkiye)

• UNGA High-level Week (September 22–28, New York)

• U.S. Midterm Elections (November 3)

• COP31 Climate Summit (November 9–20, Türkiye)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Reading & Resources

• UN Charter Articles 97-101 on the role of the Secretary-General and Secretariat

• GA Resolution 79/327 on the selection process, paragraphs 38–46

• Joint letter by the President of the General Assembly and President of the Security Council to PRs on the process, inviting nominations

• Official UN Site on Secretary-General Selection Process

• Security Council Report’s report on the history of the selection process, December 2025

• 1 for 8 Billion Ultimate Guide

• Guide from Center on International Cooperation at NYU

• Proposals for process improvements from the Accountability, Coherence, and Transparency (ACT) Group (informal group of 27 Member States)

• Tracker of UN Member State support for a woman to be Secretary-General by 1 for 8 Billion, Global Network of Women Peacebuilders, and NYU Center for Global Affairs.

Abbreviations

• UNSG — UN Secretary-General

• UNGA — UN General Assembly

• UNSC — UN Security Council

• PGA — President of the General Assembly

• PSC — President of the Security Council

• P5 — Permanent members

• E10 — Elected members

• MS — Member State

• PR — Permanent Representative

• GRULAC — Latin America & Caribbean (rotation turn)

• EEG — Eastern European Group (has never had a Secretary-General)

• APG — Asia-Pacific Group

• WEOG — Western European & Others Group

• G77 and China — Group of originally 77 and now 134 developing countries

This article was first published in its original form on United Nations Foundation.
To experience the full version:

View here

The entry into force of the High Seas Treaty marks a milestone for ocean governance, drawing applause from every corner of the world. Now comes the ultimate test: moving from negotiation to implementation to make the Treaty a true multilateral win for the ocean and humanity.

After 20 years of negotiations and almost two years since it was adopted, the High Seas Treaty entered into force on January 17, 2026. With more than 80 countries signed on, the world’s first legal framework to conserve and protect marine biodiversity in international waters is being celebrated as a multilateral win for the ocean and humanity.

“This is a historic achievement — for people and planet; for international cooperation and the United Nations,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said on the milestone occasion. “The Agreement fills a critical governance gap to secure a resilient and productive ocean for all,” he said of the Treaty, officially called the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement.

The ocean, Earth’s largest ecosystem, is deeply intertwined with the climate, global trade and economy, and global food systems. It sustains livelihoods, cultures, and communities. Two-thirds of the ocean exists outside of any country’s national jurisdiction (“the high seas”) without clear, holistic regulation or coordination. The BBNJ Agreement will finally deliver a path to tackle ocean governance issues that, until now, were left unaddressed.

The Agreement will be a springboard for dialogue among countries, multilateral organizations, and industries on critical and consequential priorities. It also levels the playing field, allowing all countries to have a voice in how key aspects of the Agreement will be addressed, including:

• Environmental impact assessments.

• Area-based management tools, including marine-protected areas.

• Marine genetic resources — plus how to share their benefits fairly.

• Capacity-building and technology transfer for countries to advance marine research.

Now leaders must harness determination to move the BBNJ Agreement from a celebrated negotiation to full, effective implementation to ensure all parties sustainably use and conserve the ocean.

Dive Deeper on the BBNJ Agreement

At the United Nations Foundation, our team of ocean and climate leaders has been engaging with the ocean science community, closely tracking the impacts and details of the BBNJ Agreement by exploring trends, key themes, and commentary.

Their reading list covers essential facts, leading voices, and what comes next for this landmark agreement. Check it out:

• Facts, explainers, and resources from the UN’s BBNJ Hub (United Nations): Discover how the four pillars of the BBNJ Agreement will be established, monitored, and governed among relevant instruments, frameworks, and international bodies.

• Game-changing International Ocean Treaty Comes Into Force (United Nations): Learn must-know information on the BBNJ Agreement, including which major economies have ratified the Treaty and what is needed to make the Treaty effective.

• Small Island Developing States react to the BBNJ’s entry into force (Alliance of Small Island States): Read the reflections of a coalition of 39 small island and coastal states on their participation in shaping the BBNJ Agreement and their vision for progress and implementation.

• The Hidden Natural Wonders of the World (High Seas Alliance): Explore which biodiversity hotspots in the high seas could be among the first marine-protected areas under the BBNJ Agreement.

• A Path to Creating the First Generation of ‘High Seas’ Protected Areas (Pew Research Center): Uncover 10 research-based ocean sites around the world that could help safeguard biodiversity under the protection of the BBNJ Agreement.

• After 20 Years, an Agreement to Safeguard the ‘High Seas’ Takes Force (World Resources Institute): Learn what the Treaty does and does not cover, and how the first BBNJ Conference of Parties (COP) will take shape.

Translating the BBNJ Agreement into Action

The BBNJ Agreement represents a fundamental step forward in ensuring the ocean is treated as a shared resource, marking a shift toward international, coordinated action outside of the borders of any nation. And the calls are growing for stakeholders to work together to ensure the Treaty complements existing agreements, provides clarity to countries and organizations responsible for its implementation, and equitably supports all regions and sectors.

Over the next year, negotiators will finalize recommendations and set a date for the BBNJ Agreement’s first COP. The inaugural event will be an opportunity to bring together key actors and sectors to put real, practical actions behind the goals outlined in the Treaty. Momentum is building for more countries to ratify the agreement and prepare proposals for the first round of marine-protected areas.

There is no question that January 17, 2026, marked a historic moment to better protect the ocean and humanity. The clock is ticking on the ultimate test leaders must pass: implementation. “Now the hard work begins,” UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Executive Director Inger Andersen said. “This ambitious agreement, decades in the making, must move decisively from words to action to truly protect the high seas and the deep seabed.”

This article was first published in its original form on United Nations Foundation.
To experience the full version:

View here

About the United Nations Foundation

For over 25 years, the UN Foundation has built novel innovations and partnerships to support the United Nations and help solve global problems at scale. As an independent charitable organization, the Foundation was created to work closely with the United Nations to address humanity’s greatest challenges and drive global progress.

Learn more: www.unfoundation.org.

As the selection process for the next UN Secretary-General gets underway, we bring you our first roundup of analysis from think tanks, analysts, and the media.

1. In the Race for U.N. Secretary-General, Might a Woman Finally Lead? by Susana Malcorra & Nudhara Yusuf, Just Security (March 18, 2026) - Argues that electing a woman is a strategic necessity to improve institutional performance and decision-making.

2. The UN’s Hidden Power Architecture: What the Next Secretary-General Must Understand by Frederik Matthys, IPI Global Observatory (March 16, 2026) - Highlights a “triple disconnect” in the UN’s funding architecture, urging the next SG to address the disproportionate influence of wealthy donors.

3. The next UN chief must architect a new era of multilateralism by Qahir Dhanani & Jim Larson, Devex (March 11, 2026) - Argues the incoming leader must actively redesign multilateralism across five key priorities rather than maintaining the status quo.

4. Minister LaRoda calls for woman UN Secretary-General from Latin American and Caribbean Region at CSW70 gender parity dialogue by Natario McKenzie, Bahamas Latest News (March 10, 2026) - Reports on Bahamian Minister Myles LaRoda’s call for a female SG from the Latin American and Caribbean region based on regional rotation norms.

5. H.E. Mutryce Williams Leads UN Dialogue on Next Secretary-General Selection by Editor-JB, The St Kitts Nevis Observer (March 9, 2026) - Details a Working Group session focusing on candidate competence, gender equality, and campaign transparency.

6. Race for the new UN Secretary-General – what will be decisive in the selection? by Dusica Radeka Djordjevic, Kosovo-online (March 8, 2026) - Examines the dynamics between regional rotation and gender pressures, noting P5 acceptability will be the decisive factor.

7. Diverging Visions, Systemic Rupture: The Tenth UN Secretary-General and the Future of International Order by Farrukh Khan, SAIS Foreign Policy Institute (February 24, 2026) - Warns that the next SG must mediate and reform constrained institutions to prevent systemic rupture in a fracturing global order.

8. The Veto May be the Weapon of Elimination in the Election of Next UN Chief by Thalif Deen, Inter Press Service (IPS) UN Bureau Report (February 17, 2026) - Explains how the Security Council veto, particularly from the U.S., makes political alignment with major powers crucial for any candidate.

9. The UN can’t reform itself with yesterday’s leaders by Dhanush Dinesh, Devex (February 13, 2026) - Warns that UN reform requires generational renewal and new thinking at the top, criticizing the outdated leadership pipeline.

10. Next UN Secretary-General Should Champion Rights by Widad Franco, Human Rights Watch (February 11, 2026) - Argues the next leader must center human rights, flagging the P5 veto as a critical constraint.

11. Ten Leadership Skills the Next UN Secretary-General Must Possess to Retain Global Relevance by Zurab Elzarov, Zurab Elzarov (LinkedIn) (February 7, 2026) - Outlines ten essential leadership skills for the next SG, emphasizing the need to navigate great-power politics and manage a complex bureaucracy.

12. 1 for 8 Billion: Rethinking Leadership at a Time of Multilateral Crisis by Margarita Gómez & Farah Munayer, Southern Voice (February 4, 2026) - Calls for a more transparent and inclusive selection process that represents Global South perspectives and women’s leadership.

13. The United Nations in 2026: Leadership and Legitimacy Under Constraint by Thibault Camelli, CIC / NYU (February 3, 2026) - Examines how fiscal constraints and political uncertainty are shaping the UN’s leadership and the trajectory of the UN80 reform.

14. Will The Next UN Secretary-General Deliver Institutional Evolution? by Ingmar Rentzhog, Forbes (January 31, 2026) - Argues member states must select a leader capable of driving substantive institutional evolution rather than settling for business-as-usual.

15. Why so few want to be the next UN Secretary-General by Zurab Elzarov, Zurab Elzarov (LinkedIn) (January 28, 2026) - Suggests the SG role has become politically unmanageable and heavily scrutinized, making it unattractive to potential candidates.

16. Who’s Afraid of the F-Word? The Next UN Leader Must Be a Woman — and a Feminist by Jody Williams & Mavic Cabrera-Balleza, PassBlue (January 27, 2026) - Argues that feminist leadership is long overdue and necessary to address systemic inequalities and restore UN credibility.

17. Where Are the Candidates? UN General Assembly Chief Calls for More People to Enter Secretary-General Race by Damilola Banjo, PassBlue (January 14, 2026) - Reports on the General Assembly President urging more candidates to enter the race ahead of the April 1 nomination deadline.

18. Wanted: a visionary to stand firm amid tyranny and turmoil by Isabel Coles, The Observer (January 11, 2026) - Warns against selecting a weak compromise candidate amid global turmoil, arguing that strong, visionary leadership is essential.

19. US Lists Demands for Next UN Secretary-General by Iulia-Elena Cazan, C-Fam (January 2, 2026) - Details U.S. demands for a candidate who prioritizes national sovereignty and reduces bureaucracy.

20. Predictions for the Secretary-General selection process by Eugene Chen, Casque Bleu (Substack) (December 18, 2025) - Outlines predictions for the race, emphasizing that the real electorate is a small group of diplomats where the P5 veto is decisive.

21. Who will be the next UN Secretary-General? (Paid subscribers only) by Maya Plentz, The UN Brief (Substack) (December 16, 2025) - Analyzes candidate visions and Security Council acceptability, positioning Grossi as a low-risk consensus choice.

22. As the U.N. Seeks Its Next Secretary-General, a Growing Number of Countries Favor a Woman by Adama Balde, Ben Donaldson, Mavic Cabrera-Balleza, Claudette Segura, Just Security (December 12, 2025) - Highlights that at least 94 states support the appointment of a female SG, with growing concerns over gender balance in UN leadership.

23. Trump admin warned to take front seat as UN chief race shifts left, boosting anti-US contenders by Beth Bailey, Fox News (December 5, 2025) - Argues the U.S. must actively shape the selection process to counter candidates viewed as left-leaning or misaligned with U.S. interests.

24. In Hindsight: The Search for the Next UN Secretary-General Begins by Security Council Report (November 30, 2025) - Details negotiations over the joint selection letter, noting friction between the P5 and E10 over nomination deadlines, regional rotation, and gender.

25. Selecting the Next UN Secretary-General: Ultimate Test for Multilateralism by Thibault Camelli, NYU CIC (November 26, 2025) - Frames the selection as a major test for multilateralism involving member state control, transparency, and the balance of power.

26. Appointment of the Next UN SG: Joint Letter from the Presidents of SC and UNGA by Security Council Report (November 25, 2025) - Provides an authoritative account of the joint letter negotiations, noting P5 resistance to regional and gender language.

27. The Process for Selecting the Secretary-General of the United Nations by Mark Simonoff & Thibault Camelli, NYU CIC (October 16, 2025) - Overviews the gender equity push, contrasting Grossi’s stance with civil society warnings that UN legitimacy requires a female leader.

28. Madam SG: Can the UN Finally Smash Its Glass Ceiling? by Arshi Qureshi, PassBlue (October 7, 2025) - Highlights calls to reform traditional SG privileges, strengthen transparency, and improve the candidate selection process.

29. The UN’s impossible job: Who would want to be the next Secretary-General? by Stéphanie Fillion, Lowy Institute (September 3, 2025) - Argues the role is an “impossible job” heavily constrained by great-power politics and the necessity of securing P5 support.

Thant Myint-U is an award-winning author, historian, conservationist, and international public servant. His most recent book is Peacemaker: U Thant and the Forgotten Quest for a Just World, a history of the 1960s told through the life of U Thant, the first UN secretary-general of color. He is a Senior Fellow at the UN Foundation.

Trump’s Board of Peace Is Anything But

New York Times, January 30, 2026

If we are to avoid another catastrophic global war, peace must be deliberately designed and firmly grounded in "the core U.N. principles of universality, sovereign equality and clear limits on the use of force."

Read more

The UN’s Next Secretary-General Could Prevent Great Power War

Financial Times, September 3, 2025

The UN needs to be led by "a courageous and cool-headed mediator" who can rebuild the international system and play a "decisive peacemaking role" when great powers clash.

Read more

The UN Should Be Retooled For A Less Internationalist Age

The Economist, June 17, 2025

The United Nations should focus on its founding principle: preventing war.

Read more

Explore the landmark UN gatherings that inspired the global women’s movement and propelled women’s rights worldwide. This groundbreaking project explores the four UN World Conferences on Women — Mexico City in 1975, Copenhagen in 1980, Nairobi in 1985, and Beijing in 1995 — and how they energized a global women’s movement to catalyze transformative progress within a single generation, and what has followed. The project also offers a roadmap for the next era of gender equality advocacy.

Learn more

This article is part of the World’s Toughest Job Decoded series produced by Our Future Agenda. To experience the full multimedia version, including archival footage, visuals, and interactive storytelling:

Read here

The role of the United Nations Secretary-General sits at the center of global expectations and global frustration. It is one of the most visible positions in international affairs yet remains widely misunderstood.

Last year we spoke to hundreds of young people about the role. Many expected the Secretary-General to be a global decision-maker, someone who can intervene, direct outcomes, or resolve crises. In practice, the role is more bounded.

That gap between perception and reality shapes how people interpret the role of the United Nations itself in moments of crisis, how they judge the UN’s effectiveness, and what they expect from its leadership. It also influences how the next Secretary-General will be assessed in a period where demands on the role are increasing.

This is the gap we set out to address through the SG Decoded series.

The series is structured around four dimensions: The Role, The Selection, The Trade-offs, and The Vision.

In The Role, we explore what a Secretary-General does.

The UN Charter defines the Secretary-General as the “chief administrative officer” of the United Nations and from there, the office evolved in practice into a hybrid role of a chief administrator, diplomat, and convenor. That distinction matters because much of the misunderstanding around the UN starts with misunderstanding what this job actually is and what kind of leadership it requires.

About Our Future Agenda

Our Future Agenda is a United Nations Foundation program dedicated to putting young people — especially from young countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America — at the heart of global decision-making and solving the world’s biggest challenges.

Learn more: www.ourfutureagenda.org

Subscribe now

Wanted: Trouble-Shooter, Diplomat, and Entrepreneur-in-Chief

Seventy-three years ago, the first United Nations Secretary-General, the Norwegian Trygve Lie, welcomed his Swedish successor, Dag Hammarskjöld, to New York with a grim handshake and a single sentence: “You are about to take over the most impossible job on Earth.”

In a tenure that ran from 1946 to 1953, Lie had dealt with the partition of Palestine, the Berlin Blockade, the Korean War, and a botched reappointment in which he was ostracized by the Soviet delegation and his staff prey to a McCarthyite witch hunt. He likely thought he had seen the toughest assignment the world could dish out.

The two terms of outgoing Secretary-General António Guterres have had their own ordeals, and the job isn’t getting any easier.

The next Secretary-General, like their predecessors, will be buffeted by forces beyond their control.

The UN started with 51 Member States, but the Secretary-General must now balance the demands of 193. Agreements on the most important challenges will be elusive. Performance will always need to be squeezed out of fewer resources, including overcoming a current liquidity crisis that has taken the UN to the edge of bankruptcy.

Nine men (ahem) have held a job that the UN Charter describes as “the chief administrative officer of the Organization,” but which civil society, media, and the general public sometimes expect to be able to change the world.

The 10th Secretary-General will therefore come in to lead an institution expected to deliver unprecedented results against overwhelming odds.

The world’s toughest job, indeed.

So, what can the next Secretary-General expect when they open their inbox in January 2027? Here are a few bets.

The workload will be driven by emergencies, but that can foster innovation.

While globalization has created great progress, its systems are fragile, inequitable, and highly susceptible to shock. As the world lurches from crisis to crisis, its political and economic systems struggle to keep up and humanitarian costs rise. The current Secretary-General complained early in his first term that “the television cameras are not there when a crisis is avoided,” and his successor will face the same reality. In this also lies an opportunity. Some of the greatest successes of the international system have been forged in crisis, from Blue Helmets to the Black Sea, just as the UN itself was born of war. Indeed, it is often at the height of crisis that the world rediscovers both the need for cooperation and the leadership to achieve it.

You will have more space than you think.

While geopolitical tensions and side-taking are on an alarming rise, there is always scope for political creativity. At the height of the Cold War in 1962, few would have expected a former Burmese schoolteacher to be able to help clear a path for the United States and Soviet Union to walk back from the atomic precipice that was the Cuban Missile Crisis. In every case of wars that end — and many have ended thanks to UN peace efforts — there was never space for a solution … until there was. Peace negotiations fail roughly half the time, which means they succeed in equal measure. For Secretaries-General, an aptitude for courageous ingenuity against the odds can be their greatest asset.

Money will be tight, but focus can be your new currency.

Recent trends continue to point to a budgetary crisis, despite across-the-board cuts over the past year. Without making light of the UN’s severe fiscal challenges, a different path could refocus around a tighter set of core missions with proven capacity to deliver. With more than $60 billion flowing through the UN system, a canny chief administrative officer has untapped financial leverage for undertakings that are mission critical.

You will need to keep an eye on the floor while reaching for the heights.

It may well be an uphill battle just to keep the flame of multilateralism alive in rough times. But there is also urgent need for new models of collective action and hunger for a renewed vision of humanity’s future based on our best instincts over our worst fears. Striking this balance will undoubtedly be what many expect the next Secretary-General to deliver. They will need strategies to keep the bottom from dropping out of even a “Minimal Viable Product” of multilateral order, while simultaneously setting higher ambition. The Secretary-General must be a clear and credible champion for a humane international order animated by human dignity and betterment and with a credible commitment to pursuing the conditions necessary to attain it. That is no easy path, but in today’s world, there is no alternative.

If nothing else, our current disruptions should decisively liberate us from incremental thinking.

If not now, when?

1 for 8 Billion is a global civil society campaign dedicated to making the selection of the UN Secretary-General more transparent, inclusive, and merit-based. As the 2026 race unfolds, the campaign provides resources, tracking tools, and policy platforms to help give “all governments and people a chance to shape the process; not only the most powerful.” All 1 for 8 Billion resources can be found here.

Key resources and trackers include:

The Ultimate Guide to the Secretary-General Selection Process (published in November 2025 and since updated)

This guide outlines the key rules and basics of the Secretary-General selection process.

Read more

Enhancing UN Leadership: Requirements for an Effective Secretary-General (December 2025)

This briefing draws on a consultation with partners and supporters to identify both formal criteria for the role and a proposed “person specification” for the role based on these formal requirements. The campaign makes recommendations for how vision statements and candidate hearings should be structured and assessed by Member States.

Read more

1 for 8 Billion’s Core Policy Platform (2016)

This foundational document comes from 1 for 8 Billion’s originating 2016 campaign, 1 for 7 Billion. It outlines 10 demands for reforming the Secretary-General selection process. Key proposals include instituting a single, nonrenewable term to insulate the Secretary-General from reelection pressures (see also the tracker of support for this proposal), defining clear selection criteria (see further commentary), and ending the backroom monopoly held by the Security Council’s five permanent members.

Read more

Women’s Leadership Can Renew the UN: A call to action from Madrid (February 2026)

This update details a call from partner GWL Voices’ Dialogue in Madrid for a gender-equal international system. It highlights the global mobilization efforts underway to appoint a woman to lead the UN for the first time.

Read more

Tracking Member State support for a feminist woman Secretary-General (Ongoing Resource)

This tool monitors which Member States have formally committed to supporting a female candidate for the 2026 race. It acts as an interactive accountability mechanism, allowing civil society to see whether Member States are matching their public rhetoric on gender equality with concrete, diplomatic commitments.

Read more

For 80 years, the selection of the United Nations Secretary-General has been the world’s most exclusive game of musical chairs. It is a process famously described as opaque, protracted, and usually bad-tempered — a diplomatic papal conclave where the white smoke rises only after months of bruising backroom deals.

A General Assembly resolution calls for a candidate of “eminence and high attainment,” a bar that all nine occupants of the office have met (though one hid a terrible secret). But eminence is rarely the deciding factor. Since 1946, the race has been defined by unwritten rules, great power rivalries, and accidental victors.

Nine men have now been Secretary-General (plus one Acting Secretary-General). We look back at how they were chosen, identifying seven lessons on what to expect as the world gears up for the next selection.

1. Pick Your Article of Faith

Article 7 of the UN Charter stipulates five “principal organs” of the UN System (plus the Trusteeship Council which has suspended its operations), of which the UN Secretariat, helmed by a Secretary-General, is one — implying a stature alongside the UN’s Member State bodies that has often been honored in the breach.

Article 97 of the UN Charter provides for the Secretary-General to be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. This is another opportunity for balance across the UN system that has yet to be seized. In practice, the Security Council has played kingmaker and the General Assembly largely a rubber stamp.

The primacy of the Security Council has also handed a weapon to the Permanent Five (P5): the veto. Historically, you do not need the world to love you to become Secretary-General; you just need China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States not to hate you or at least to be indifferent to you.

The veto has turned many selections into a war of attrition. In 1981, the race descended into a farce known as the Waldheim-Salim deadlock. China, determined to see a Secretary-General from the developing world, vetoed the Austrian incumbent Kurt Waldheim a record-breaking 16 times. The United States, refusing to accept a “radical,” vetoed the Tanzanian candidate Salim Ahmed Salim 15 times. The stalemate broke only when both exhausted powers dumped their champions and settled on a compromise everyone could live with: Peru’s Javier Pérez de Cuéllar.

The veto can be just as deadly when wielded alone. In 1996, Boutros Boutros-Ghali had the support of 14 of the 15 Security Council members for a second term. But he had made a fatal enemy in U.S. Ambassador Madeleine Albright. After a series of clashes (Boutros-Ghali once dismissed her as “poor girl, she is out of her league”), the U.S. cast a lone veto, forcing the Egyptian diplomat out. The lesson was brutal and clear: A recommendation requires unanimity. If even a single great power wants you gone, you go.

For all the power wielded by the Security Council, the process remains unpredictable and dynamics elsewhere can still shape preferences.

2. The Secret Candidate

Because the veto can incinerate front-runners, high-profile campaigning is often a kiss of death. The history of the UN shows that the winner is frequently the person who stayed in the shadows the longest.

The first proper Secretary-General, Norway’s Trygve Lie, was a compromise candidate chosen in 1946 only after the United States and Soviet Union blocked each other’s favored contenders. (The actual first occupant was Gladwyn Jebb, a British civil servant who held the job for a little over three months as Acting Secretary-General — hence the ½ in our history — allowing the British to forever annoy the Norwegians by claiming that the first Secretary-General came from Yorkshire, not Oslo).

The ultimate stealth candidate, however, was Dag Hammarskjöld. In 1953, with the Security Council deadlocked, the French proposed the quiet Swedish civil servant. He was so unknown that he wasn’t even on the betting lists. Hammarskjöld himself first heard the news from a journalist and dismissed it as an “April Fool’s joke in extremely bad taste.”

The tactic of hiding in plain sight remains effective. Kofi Annan ran a stealth campaign in 1996 with U.S. backing, quietly positioning himself while the French fought to save Boutros-Ghali. Ban Ki-moon used his low profile to secure the job in 2006, as heavyweights destroyed one another.

Still, while António Guterres, a former Portuguese Prime Minister, navigated the 2016 race partly by being visible enough to win the public argument, but careful enough to avoid triggering a Russian veto against a Western European candidate, his performance in the General Assembly is generally seen to have contributed to his success.

3. Regional Rotation: It’s more of a guideline

Regional rotation — the idea that the top job is a prize that must be passed fairly across all regions of the world — is one of the UN’s unwritten rules.

Geography has always mattered. In the early days, the main rule was negative: No national from a P5 country could apply. This is perhaps the only rule the P5 have consistently followed — mostly because none of them trusts the others to hold the post.

Later, regions began to stake their claims. Boutros-Ghali’s election in 1991 was driven by a demand that it was Africa’s turn. South Korea’s Ban Ki-moon benefited from a consensus that the job belonged to Asia. But the practice is fragile.

Most recently, in 2016, the rotation principle suggested it was Eastern Europe’s turn, but confusion about multiple candidates from a single nominator created an unexpected dynamic that contributed to the outcome. Simultaneously, a global campaign pushed for transparency and public engagement in the selection, which generated new dynamics in the candidate field.

Yet, when the ballots were counted, the Security Council ignored the map, the gender gap, and candidates from Eastern Europe to select Guterres, a man from the West. Rhetoric about balance is powerful in the General Assembly, but in the Security Council, strategic comfort always trumps geography.

4. The Reluctant Administrator

As wartime president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted the UN to launch under a “world-famous moderator.” Dwight Eisenhower, Anthony Eden, and Charles de Gaulle were touted for the job. Every race since has seen speculation over a rock star candidate, but one has never formally stood. Instead, Member States have made clear that the Secretary-General serves at their pleasure, with U Thant complaining that the Security Council was treating him like a “glorified clerk.”

But Secretaries-General have also been known to prove themselves surprisingly assertive. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Thant provided the “ladder“ down which both the Soviet Union and the United States descended,” while the Security Council itself hailed the Burmese diplomat for bringing them together (once, memorably, in poetry: “Cheer next U Thant who never tires / In harmonizing our desires”).

Hammarskjöld and Annan were supposed to be pliable bureaucrats but proved to be transformative leaders in office. The former — “a nice, competent Swedish civil servant who wouldn’t rock the boat” — was a visionary who turned the UN into a peacekeeping and  development actor.

Annan owed his job to Albright, who was U.S. Secretary of State at the time, and complained about her habit of calling him in the middle of the night to tell him what to do. But he went on to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for revitalizing the UN, opposing terrorism, championing human rights, and leading the fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa. He faced down a determined campaign to remove him after clashing with the U.S. over Iraq, and to this day the Ghanaian remains one of the most admired Secretaries-General among his peers.

5. The Waldheim Warning

Perhaps the most chilling lesson from history is the so-called Waldheim Warning: If the UN does not vet its potential leaders, history eventually will.

Kurt Waldheim served two terms (1972–1981) as a “colorless” crowd-pleaser. It was only after he left office to run for the Austrian presidency that the world discovered he had been an intelligence officer in a Wehrmacht unit that committed atrocities in the Balkans during World War II. The files, as it happens, were in UN archives the whole time; it was just that “nobody bothered” to check.

Governments jostle for the favored candidates, but in doing so, they can fail to ask the hard questions. In an age of information saturation, oversharing on social media, and hackers newly super-empowered by AI, if the UN does not vet those who could be its next leader, someone else probably will.

6. Living the Lie

The General Assembly represents the “Parliament of Man,” but in the selection of the Secretary-General, it has struggled to have a voice.

While the GA formally appoints the Secretary-General, it has almost always accepted the Security Council’s single recommendation. Only once did the Assembly try to flex its muscles, and in doing so, Trygve Lie’s life became a living nightmare.

In 1950, the Soviets threatened to veto Lie’s reappointment because of his support for UN intervention in Korea. The United States, refusing to back down, pushed the General Assembly to extend Lie’s term without a Security Council recommendation. It was a pyrrhic victory. The Soviet bloc simply boycotted Lie, refusing to acknowledge his existence or open his letters. Isolated and crushed by the pressure (and a McCarthyite witch hunt against his staff), Lie resigned in 1952, declaring the post “the most impossible job on this earth.”

Since then, the Assembly has fretted under the yoke of the Council but is yet to stage a full rebellion.

Still, this year could well produce unexpected dynamics, whether from the General Assembly or the E10 (the elected members of the Security Council), at least four of which need to concur with the P5 for a candidate to be put forward for appointment.

7. The Arc Bends (Slowly) Toward Transparency

For decades, the selection process happened in smoke-filled rooms (literally, in the early days). Today, the arc has bent toward transparency, though power still hides in the dark.

An early innovation was the straw poll, introduced during the 1981 deadlock to test candidates without casting a formal vote. Later came colored ballots to differentiate between P5 and E10 votes, with the former warning of a potential veto.

The biggest shift occurred in 2016. For the first time, the President of the General Assembly and President of the Security Council jointly kicked off the process. Candidates were required to publish vision statements and participate in informal public dialogues in the General Assembly — effectively job interviews in front of the world. Guterres emerged victorious in part because he performed well in these hearings, creating momentum that the Security Council found hard to ignore.

A caucus of countries known as the ACT Group (for Accountability, Coherence, and Transparency) soon came together to press for further improvements. Its latest proposals can be found here.

There was even a hint in 2021 that the field could be open to citizen candidates when a young UN staffer attempted to challenge Guterres for his second term. That was clearly a bridge too far and rules were tightened requiring formal Member State nomination, effectively locking out unconventional challengers.

This year’s contest has seen further push-me-pull-you as modalities for the selection were agreed. There were some important steps, including new requirements for financial disclosure from candidates and encouragement of women as candidates. But proposals for further innovations, from serving a single seven-year term to instituting clear timelines to asking the Security Council to recommend two or more candidates, were rebuffed, including through a remarkable display of P5 unity.

Amid so much disruption, the search for Secretary-General v.10.0 could follow in its historical grooves but could well skip a beat. While the “most impossible job” may simply fall to the person whom the great powers dislike the least, we may well be surprised. Between the frequency with which old multilateral habits are being chucked aside, and the palpable consequence of this selection, we should all be prepared for anything.