Security Council Chamber at United Nations

The United Nations in Hindsight: The Security Council and the UN80 Initiative – What Lies Ahead?

Author’s note: Security Council Report (SCR) is an independent think tank dedicated to supporting a more effective, transparent, and accountable U.N. Security Council. A version of this article will appear in SCR’s September Monthly Forecast.

In September, world leaders will converge in New York to mark the 80th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. While this significant milestone is a moment of celebration, the prevailing mood seems to be somber, as the organization faces what many regard as an existential crisis. Rising geopolitical tensions among major powers have not allowed the Security Council to effectively address some of the most intractable conflicts of our time. Compounding the situation is a severe financial crisis that threatens to undermine the U.N.’s ability to deliver on its core mandates— maintaining international peace and security, promoting human rights, and fostering international cooperation to address global challenges.

In March, Secretary-General António Guterres launched a major reform initiative aimed at overhauling the U.N. system to make it more “effective, cost-efficient, and responsive.” Connecting it to the organization’s 80th anniversary, this latest reform effort has been dubbed the UN80 Initiative. It is being pursued across three work streams: efficiencies and improvements, mandate implementation review, and structural changes and program realignment.

The various reform proposals of the UN80 Initiative are likely to have significant effects on the work of the U.N. Security Council and have already elicited varied responses from U.N. member states.

Where is the Council feeling the pinch?

The U.N. estimated that resources across the U.N. system shrunk by 30 percent this year compared to 2023. The organization’s liquidity crisis—largely driven by member states’ failure to pay their assessed contributions in full and on time—has forced it to operate in a resource-constrained environment, leading to hiring freezes and reduced services. Not surprisingly, efforts under the UN80 Initiative are focused on achieving efficiency gains and cost reductions by eliminating redundancies, streamlining processes, and relocating services to low-cost locations, among others.

These efforts may, to some extent, affect the Security Council’s ability to carry out its day-to-day work—such as limitations in securing meeting rooms or conference services beyond regular office hours. To date, however, Council members see the impact of these particular changes as marginal. In this regard, the Secretariat has also sought to ensure that direct support to the Council, as well as to other intergovernmental bodies in New York and Geneva, remains unaffected by cost-cutting and efficiency measures.[1] However, future budget cuts could mean fewer reports, slower publication of Council meeting records and possibly a reduced number of Council meeting webcasts. Cumulatively this could result in less transparency of the work of the Council.

The liquidity crisis is expected to have an acute impact on U.N. peacekeeping operations—a vital instrument of the Security Council for maintaining international peace and security. In anticipation of potential funding shortfalls, the U.N. has apparently developed a contingency plan involving deep budget cuts across all peacekeeping missions. Some missions have already proposed repatriating contingents to cope with financial constraints, raising concerns that such measures could compromise the ability of U.N. peacekeeping operations to fulfill their mandated responsibilities, particularly the protection of civilians. A peacekeeping budget, however, will be decided by the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly, which could see member states fighting to keep funding for their particular situations of interest.

Most critically, funding cuts are already severely undermining the U.N.’s humanitarian efforts to alleviate human suffering. Various U.N. agencies, funds, and programs have been forced to scale back—or in some cases, halt—life-saving operations due to acute funding shortfalls, with dire consequences for millions in urgent need of assistance. This appears to be the case across many humanitarian emergencies on the Council’s agenda, including in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan, among others.

“Christmas Tree” Mandates: A thing of the past?

In early August, the Secretary-General submitted his report to member states on the mandate implementation review which highlights that since 1946, three of the U.N.’s six principal organs (that is, the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the Economic and Social Council) have issued mandates through more than 40,000 resolutions, decisions, and presidential statements, resulting in a complex and bloated mandate delivery system. In his Aug. 1 briefing to the General Assembly, the Secretary-General outlined several challenges related to mandate implementation, including burdensome processes, overlapping mandates, duplicative structures, and a growing gap between mandates and available resources.

Regarding the Security Council, the Secretary-General noted that its resolutions are now three times longer than they were 30 years ago, expressing particular concern over the growing use of the phrase “within existing resources” in Council resolutions—language often used by Council members to avoid additional budgetary implications when making specific requests to the Secretariat. This practice has placed increasing strain on the Secretariat’s capacity, further stretching already limited resources, the Secretary-General stated.

Most of these issues were first identified during the 2006 mandate implementation review process, but efforts to address them have remained limited. The Security Council has been working to prioritize and sequence mandates in an effort to move away from “Christmas tree” mandates—a term used in the 2015 report of the High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) to describe peacekeeping missions burdened with too many tasks—in favor of more streamlined and focused mandates. Council members are increasingly focused on identifying missions’ priority tasks and distinguishing between core mandates and other tasks.[2] Despite these efforts, the report on mandate implementation review shows that there is still a lot of room for improvement. Recently, there have been efforts to streamline mandate and reporting cycles to enable the Council to focus more effectively on the most pressing peace and security issues. China and the UK have apparently taken the lead in these discussions; however, they were unable to build the necessary consensus for substantial changes, resulting instead in only minor adjustments. The mandate implementation review might lead to a renewed effort from some Council members to explore how to produce shorter, more focused mandates in the current political context.

Members have also questioned the utility of assessments, strategic reviews, or independent reviews conducted by the Secretary-General at the request of the Council. While the first two are typically conducted in-house by the Secretariat, the latter is led by external experts with Secretariat support. While these reviews are intended to inform the Council’s decisions on mandate renewals, adjustments, reconfigurations, or terminations, Council members have at times expressed frustration with the outcomes of these processes, particularly when the recommendations fail to present realistic or actionable options to guide decision-making. There have also been instances where the Security Council has chosen not to consider the findings of an independent strategic review when renewing mission mandates. A recent example is the strategic review of the U.N. Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA). The host government apparently opposed the consideration of the review’s recommendations, while Council members themselves appeared dissatisfied with the review’s findings.

Restructuring and Realignment?

The next step in the ongoing reform efforts in line with the third work stream may be structural changes and programmatic alignment, including proposals to streamline the UN’s field presence. In his May 12 briefing to the General Assembly, the Secretary-General indicated his intention to review “the present structure of Regional Offices, Special Representatives and Envoys aiming at a consolidation of the system – with increased functionality and meaningful savings.” A leaked internal memo revealed that there are proposals to eliminate overlaps, for example, between the mandate of the U.N. Office for Central Africa (UNOCA) and those of MINUSCA and the U.N. Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO), as well as the overlapping responsibilities of the Special Representative for the Horn of Africa and the Special Representative for the Great Lakes. The memo suggests exploring the possibility of merging the U.N. Office to the African Union (UNOAU) with the Office of the Special Envoy for the Great Lakes. Merging these offices could in some cases potentially help in removing duplications, while in other cases it may affect the quality of information flowing to the Council and the depth of mediation with conflict parties to the detriment of peace and security.

In his May briefing Guterres also mentioned a plan to streamline the civilian components of peacekeeping. Additionally, he flagged the possibility of restructuring the Department of Peace Operations (DPO) and the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA) by “merging units, eliminating functional and structural duplications, and getting rid of functions that are also exercised in other parts of the system.” The two departments are currently conducting a comprehensive review of U.N. peace operations as requested by the Pact for the Future, the outcome document of the 2024 Summit of the Future. In his March 24 briefing to the Security Council, the Secretary-General expressed hope that this review will help inform efforts under the UN80 Initiative by finding efficiencies and improvements.

Responses to the UN80 Initiative

Member States appear broadly supportive of the UN80 Initiative, while awaiting detailed analysis and concrete recommendations on how to implement the proposed reforms in order to make the organization fit for present and future challenges. However, there seems to be significant anxiety within the U.N. system, with staff members worrying about job security and potential relocations and U.N. staff unions expressing concern about the lack of transparency and consultation in the process.

Although the Council has not held a formal meeting to discuss UN80, its members have shared their views and perspectives in informal briefings by the Secretary General to members of the General Assembly. The United States has emerged as a key proponent of the UN80 Initiative, asserting that in an era of financial austerity, the U.N. must reduce costs and improve efficiency by eliminating duplication, consolidating functions, and refocusing on the effective delivery of priority mandates. In this context, the United States maintains that the U.N. should return to its core purpose of maintaining international peace and security—particularly at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions. The administration of President Donald Trump has proposed significant cuts to the U.S. contribution to the U.N. regular and peacekeeping budgets for the 2026 fiscal year. The United States has accumulated arrears of $1.5 billion and $1.2 billion to the regular and peacekeeping budgets, respectively. The US congress has yet to approve the proposed budget.

European members have also expressed strong support for the UN80 Initiative, while emphasizing that efforts to enhance efficiency and mandate implementation must not come at the expense of the U.N.’s normative values. EU members appear particularly concerned about the call to go “back to the basics” and its potential implications in sidelining critical priorities such as human rights, gender equality, climate action, and sustainable development. The EU has stressed the importance of maintaining the balance among the U.N. Charter’s three pillars—peace and security, development, and human rights—warning that privileging one over the others risks undermining the foundations of multilateralism. Furthermore, the EU views broadening the donor base—both through assessed and voluntary contributions—as essential to addressing the U.N.’s financial difficulties.

China has expressed support for a leaner, more efficient, responsive U.N., but underscored that the reform process must be transparent, inclusive, and based on broad consultation. At the same time, China cautioned that the reform initiative should not be used as a pretext for any member state to shirk its financial obligations—an apparent reference to the US, which has accumulated significant arrears. This position was echoed by the Group of 77 (G77), the largest coalition of developing countries at the U.N., which noted that “one single Member State, which is also the only beneficiary of the maximum ceiling on the scale of assessments, continues to be responsible for more than 90 percent of arrears to the regular budget.” China—the U.N.’s second-largest financial contributor—has also fallen behind on its payments, with arrears totaling $587 million for the 2025 fiscal year as of May 9. (Currently the assessments for the United States and China constitute over 40 percent for the U.N.’s regular budget and nearly 50 percent of its peacekeeping budget.)

Like the European members, China also emphasized that the U.N.’s three pillars should be promoted as mutually reinforcing. It particularly stressed the importance of safeguarding the interests of developing countries and highlighted concerns that the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is falling behind schedule. Similarly, the G77 underscored the need to preserve the U.N.’s multilateral and inclusive character, cautioning against austerity-driven reform models that could undermine the organization’s effectiveness, particularly in implementing the wide range of mandates approved by member states.

Russia has noted that this is not the first time the U.N. has faced financial difficulties. It attributed the current challenges to a lack of financial discipline and the disproportionate influence of major donors, including excessive reliance on voluntary contributions, a bloated bureaucracy, inefficient internal processes, a growing number of leadership positions, and insufficient geographical representation. Additionally, Russia has raised concerns about the Secretariat exceeding its mandate, compromising impartiality and eroding the organization’s legitimacy. Russia has also emphasized that the reform process must be fully transparent and accountable to member states, stressing the need to avoid rushed decisions without broad consensus—a point it underscored through initiating a draft General Assembly resolution on the UN80 Initiative, which was adopted on July 14.

While many members acknowledge that the U.N. could be more efficient, and there are areas that could be streamlined, only when they receive concrete recommendations from the Secretary-General will members’ positions on the restructuring become clear. These positions are likely to have considerable impact on the world body’s ability to promote peace and security, humanitarian relief, human rights, and development for the most vulnerable across the globe. The road to a leaner, more efficient U.N. is likely to be bumpy, but as the U.N. turns 80, its future may lie in being able to adapt to shifting global realities.

[1] Chef de Cabinet, “Functional Review for Cost Reduction and Efficiencies,” internal memorandum, United Nations, April 25, 2025.

[2] For more, see a summary of the workshop jointly organized by the International Peace Institute, the Stimson Center and Security Council Report on 14 May 2024 on “Prioritizing, Sequencing, and Streamlining UN Security Council Mandates: Taking Stock of Lessons Learned and Pathways Forward”.)

Filed Under

, , , , , , ,
Send A Letter To The Editor

DON'T MISS A THING. Stay up to date with Just Security curated newsletters: