KHARKIV, Ukraine — As the United Nations prepares for a transition at the top — a new secretary-general will take the helm of the organization on Jan. 1, 2027 — the United States and its many critics in Congress, the State Department, and the White House should differentiate what works at the U.N. versus what does not. When making cuts and pursuing reform, it is essential to do so with a scalpel rather than an axe. Some U.N. agencies provide great value for the investment and perform functions that no other government or organization could.
This is not to say that bold reform isn’t needed. On the contrary, the U.N. bureaucracy is sclerotic, and successive U.N. secretaries-general prefer to jet-set around the globe to virtue signal rather than pursue critical reforms. Scandals like the Oil-for-Food program, the Haiti cholera epidemic, UNRWA complicity with terrorist groups such as Hamas, peacekeeper child sex abuse, and U.N. Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese’s antisemitism all erode the standing and reputation of the U.N. in the U.S. That’s a problem for the U.N. in that the U.S. is traditionally the organization’s greatest donor. But some U.N. organizations do excellent work.
