A New Un Secretary-General: What’s the Point?

In the coming weeks, a new UN Secretary-General – whether a man or a woman – will be appointed amidst a climate of resignation, or even crisis, regarding the organisation’s future. Beyond the United Nations, it is the entire architecture of multilateralism and international cooperation established since 1945 to ensure peace, development and respect for human rights that is being seriously challenged by three distinct threats.

The first, of course, is the return to the use of force, the flouting of the rules of international law, and the law of the jungle in relations between states – practised in particular by several members of the United Nations Security Council, who should, in fact, be the guardians of the system. Violations of the fundamental principle of the territorial integrity of states and the use of force in Ukraine, Gaza, Venezuela and Iran are examples of this brutalisation of international relations. Even if, by becoming bogged down, they reveal the impotence of the powerful.

The second threat is of an entirely different nature, one that is older, which undermines trust in and support for traditional international institutions and stems from the growing influence of the ‘Global South’ in international relations: it is the threat posed by these institutions’ lack of legitimacy and representativeness. Conceived and established in the aftermath of the Second World War in a world dominated by Western thought, the UN and the Bretton Woods institutions – the World Bank and the IMF – have a mode of governance and, more often than not, an agenda that leaves little room for the ‘rest’ of the world, which now challenges them. The aim for the BRICS countries is to create a ‘post-Western world’, characterised by its multipolar nature and South-South solidarity. It is telling in this regard that President Xi, whilst on an official visit to Washington last September, did not deem it necessary to travel to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly, which was taking place at the same time.

The third threat concerns the inefficiency of international institutions, particularly in light of the complexity of the global challenges we face. The prevailing Westphalian system, based on the nation-state as the principal and supreme actor on the international stage, is clearly no longer suited to establishing global governance of AI and tackling a world grappling with the digital revolution and global warming. There is now an urgent need to establish new modes of operation and decision-making that involve businesses, civil society, and the research and scientific communities. In this regard, we must commend France, which, as President, took the initiative to invite Sam Altman and Dario Amodei, the heads of OpenAI and Anthropic, to address the United Nations Security Council on 23 September 2026. The aim of this meeting was to assess the scale of the risks posed by AI agents and to discuss the need for global coordination. Altman and Amodei put forward several requests and concrete proposals to the Security Council for regulating cutting-edge AI models, including the adoption of common international standards, alert and transparency protocols, and targeted, global bans; in particular, they suggested outright banning the use of AI for the design or manufacture of biological weapons. Although the United States categorically rejected any notion of oversight or binding regulation, this type of dialogue within the UN’s highest body between governments and private sector stakeholders represents a notable innovation that is a step in the right direction. Just like the Fashion Pact, launched during the G7 summit in Biarritz, a coalition of around thirty of the world’s leading fashion and clothing brands – including Kering, Ralph Lauren, H&M, Armani – have joined forces and committed to using 100 per cent renewable energy by 2030 and achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. When one considers that the fashion industry is the second most polluting industrial sector in the world and that its production generates more greenhouse gases than air and sea transport combined, one realises just how crucial public-private partnerships can become in implementing international commitments, given the inertia of traditional intergovernmental processes. One can even envisage a redefinition of roles in the long term: private sector actors, the research community and NGOs will need to be fully involved alongside international organisations not only in building up knowledge and expertise, but also in setting quantified targets and standards to be achieved, and in their implementation phase. This is a new, co-constructive approach that promotes consensus-building and ownership by all stakeholders.

How should we respond to these three threats? Clearly, the second and third threats can be addressed if a genuine commitment to success can be mobilised amongst all parties – both public and private – and amongst leaders in the Western world and the Global South. This is in everyone’s interest. In the weeks following his appointment, the new UN Secretary-General could call for a major ‘conference on rebuilding’, in the spirit of the San Francisco Conference in the spring of 1945, which led to the drafting and unanimous adoption of the United Nations Charter by the fifty states present. This is a massive undertaking which, if carried out with strong leadership and in a spirit of inclusive dialogue with clearly defined objectives, can bring the international community back under one roof and serve as a lever to influence those states advocating a return to force and power – the primary threat outlined above.

France can play a decisive role, as it has done successfully in recent years, notably through the Franco-Mexican initiative calling on the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council to voluntarily waive their right of veto in cases of mass atrocities, genocide, crimes against humanity and large-scale war crimes. Since 26 April 2022, the United Nations General Assembly has required a mandatory debate to be held within 10 working days of a permanent member of the Security Council exercising its right of veto. Similarly, France, together with Togo and the African Union, co-sponsored the resolution adopted last September recommending the phasing out of the Mercator projection in favour of the Equal Earth map projection, which provides a representation of the world that is more faithful to reality.

This clearly demonstrates that progress is possible and that the time is ripe for this conference on reform, as illustrated by the Partners for Multilateralism (P4M) Summit, which was held in New York last September on the sidelines of the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly, at the initiative of the European Union and countries as diverse as Australia, Brazil, Canada, India and Kenya. In an increasingly fractured world, a strong commitment to cooperation persists across all continents, regions and political traditions.

If this conference on reform succeeds in establishing new ways of operating that are just, fair and effective, it may steer countries that favour the use of force and power back towards a spirit of cooperation, rather than continuing a frantic race for domination that is driving humanity to the brink of the abyss. The major powers did indeed manage to reach an agreement in the 1960s, in the face of the threat of nuclear annihilation, by adopting the welcome Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) under the auspices of the UN in 1968. Why should it not be possible today to adopt global regulations governing artificial intelligence, this new existential threat?

If the United States and Russia had used the hundreds of billions squandered in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran – with the disastrous results we are all familiar with – to fund the fight against poverty, climate change or education for all, they would have become the most celebrated countries on the planet. The United States did itself credit in the aftermath of the Second World War by establishing the foundations of international criminal justice through the Nuremberg Tribunal, even though it now rejects the very existence of the International Criminal Court.

Europe must realise that even after Trump’s departure, we will not return to a strong and harmonious transatlantic alliance. “You can’t put the genie back in the bottle”, to use the well-known expression. Whilst maintaining the best possible relationship with the United States, Europe must now, and very quickly, assert itself as a major balancing power and give substance to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s vision of creating alliances of middle powers, bringing together the countries of the coalition of the willing and the southern countries determined to re-establish the rules of cooperation and international law – the sole guarantors of peace and development.

This support and determination will be essential for the new United Nations Secretary-General and for the survival of the organisation.

---

This article has been translated from French into English using artificial intelligence.