Rwanda’s recent call for a more country-focused and accountable United Nations system speaks to a much bigger question the world can no longer avoid: is the UN, in its current form, still fit for purpose? The organisation was created 80 years ago, at the end of the Second World War, in a world very different from the one we live in today. Power was concentrated in a few capitals. Many African countries were still under colonial rule. Global challenges were largely defined by inter-state wars, reconstruction and the politics of the Cold War. Today’s challenges are different. Conflicts are more complex; climate change, pandemics, forced migration, terrorism, cyber threats and economic inequality now shape global security and development. Yet, in too many ways, the UN system still reflects the power relations, bureaucracy and assumptions of 1945. This is why reform cannot be cosmetic. It must go to the heart of how the UN makes decisions, how it funds its work, how it measures success, and how it is held accountable when it fails the very people it was created to protect. For Rwanda, this debate is not theoretical. In 1994, the Genocide against the Tutsi happened while the UN had peacekeepers on the ground. The failure was not one of information; the world knew enough. It was a failure of political will, courage and moral responsibility. More than one million people were killed as the international system watched, hesitated, and ultimately abandoned those marked for extermination. Three decades later, eastern DR Congo offers another painful example. The region continues to endure violence, displacement and targeted hate, despite hosting one of the UN’s largest and longest-running peacekeeping missions. For many civilians, the presence of blue helmets has not translated into protection, accountability or lasting peace. This is not to say the UN has achieved nothing. Its agencies have supported health, education, humanitarian relief and development in many parts of the world. But after 80 years, the balance sheet demands honesty. The institution has too often been unable to prevent atrocities, stop conflicts, or hold powerful actors to account. Reform must also address funding because a UN system that depends heavily on the political mood of a few major contributors will always remain vulnerable. Agencies cannot plan sustainably when their budgets can be shaken by elections, ideological shifts or the whims of powerful countries. The world needs more predictable, diversified and sustainable financing mechanisms that allow the UN to serve people, not donors’ changing preferences. Equally important, reform must make UN work more responsive to national realities. Countries should not be treated as passive recipients of templates designed elsewhere. Support must be shaped by local priorities, local institutions and measurable outcomes.
