National Interest

by Brett Schaefer

    As the United Nations prepares for new elections and appointments, the Trump administration should clarify what it wants from the organization.

    The future relationship between the United States and the United Nations, as well as its affiliated organizations, has never been more uncertain. In February, President Donald Trump launched a review of all international organizations to determine whether and to what extent the United States should continue to participate in and support them. But as that review drags on, the White House risks losing both influence and focus on elections that will determine the direction of the UN for years to come.

    The most important election on the horizon is for the secretary-general of the United Nations in 2026. In his address to the General Assembly, President Trump made clear that the UN is at a crossroads. And even the determinedly tone-deaf Secretary-General Antonio Guterres admitted reform is imperative with his UN80 reform agenda. But implementation will require commitment from his successor.

    To be appointed, the next secretary-general must be recommended by the Security Council, which requires support from at least nine members without opposition from any of the permanent members, as well as support from the General Assembly. In other words, the United States has a veto in the process and should use its leverage to ensure that the next secretary-general will support robust US-led reform efforts.

    Unfortunately, most of the currently announced or rumored candidates are unlikely to be robust allies of the United States. Most have a long-standing record of support for an expanded role for the UN, rather than retrenchment. Few have notable records of achievement.

    The informal practice within the UN is to rotate the job among different geographic regions and Latin America is next in line for rotation. Many candidates have been floated, including former President Michelle Bachelet of Chile, Rebecca Grynspan of Costa Rica (the current head of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), Prime Minister Mia Mottley of Barbados and Rafael Grossi of Argentina (the current head of the International Atomic Energy Agency). All face potential hurdles.

    Bachelet succumbed to Chinese pressure as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights by delaying the release of a damning report on Chinese human rights violations until her last day in office. Grynspan has spent the past 25 years moving from one appointment in the UN system to another, raising questions about her commitment to reform. Mottley is best known in the UN for her fierce advocacy for climate change prevention and increased development funding, which the United States opposes. IAEA director-general Grossi highlights his leadership on monitoring Iran’s nuclear program and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which could elicit opposition from Russia, China, or both.

    Even though the next secretary-general may hail from Latin America, candidates from outside the region are reportedly interested. Former New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern is rumored to be interested. But she was a major proponent of stringent COVID lockdowns and resigned because she no longer had “enough in the tank,” raising questions of how she might handle the stresses as secretary-general. Current Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed of Nigeria is best known for her role in shaping the Sustainable Development Goals, which the Trump administration opposes.

    None has a clear advantage and could face opposition from permanent members of the Security Council for their past actions or inactions, or questions about future policy priorities. However, the secretary-general race is not the only leadership position in play. American interests in these contests vary considerably.

    At the top of the list is the coming 2026 appointment of the Commissioner-General of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). UNRWA has an extensive record of vulnerability to misuse by terrorist organizations, particularly Hamas and Hezbollah, who have used its facilities to store weapons, launch attacks against Israel and shield its communications and facilities. UNRWA has employed members of these terrorist groups and some of those employees may have participated in the October 7 terrorist attack on Israel. The United States has justifiably suspended funding for UNRWA. Its priority should be to eliminate the organization and ensure that Philippe Lazzarini is the last UNRWA Commissioner-General.

    Other leadership contests are all but decided. For instance, Alexander De Croo of Belgium has been nominated by Secretary-General Guterres to lead the UN Development Program. The UN General Assembly is likely to confirm that nomination. De Croo is an improvement over acting administrator Haoling Xu of China, but his commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals is at odds with Trump administration policy and is unlikely to entice the White House to restore funding to UNDP.

    Relatedly, several leaders are running for second terms, including International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Secretary-General Doreen Bogdan-Martin, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Director-General Daren Tang, International Fund for Agricultural Development President Alvaro Lario and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Director-General Fernando Arias. Absent gross mismanagement or other scandals, current officeholders generally have an inside track for reelection.

    Then there are the ho-hum contests, for example, the UN Tourism and the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). In the new year, the next secretary-general of UN Tourism will be Shaikha Nasser Al Nowais of the United Arab Emirates, who has announced her focus on promoting environmental sustainability and reducing social inequality in the tourism industry. At UNIDO, Gerd Müller of Germany is poised for a second term as director-general. He is focused on climate change and sustainable development.

    In each case, the Trump administration might have taken issue with the priorities of these leaders, except that the United States withdrew from both organizations in the 1990s due to ineffectiveness and poor value for money. This is a reasonable model; if the leadership of a specialized agency is merely interested in parroting slogans and spending more money, Washington should vote with its feet. But opting out isn’t always the right choice.

    Where merited, the United States needs to be attentive and weigh in to support its preferred candidates as it did for Bogdan-Martin at the ITU. Similarly, the Trump administration supported Tang in 2020 against a Chinese candidate for WIPO Director General. As the largest historical contributor to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the United States has a significant interest in the selection of the next executive director. In addition, the contest for IMO secretary-general might draw US scrutiny given its very public opposition to the organization’s Net-Zero Framework in October.

    However, reelection is not guaranteed and the United States should not shy from opposition where justified, such as the current High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk of Austria. Turk has been an outspoken critic of Israel, US sanctions against the International Criminal Court and the Trump administration’s policy on diversity, equity and inclusion programs and immigration. The United States has strongly criticized the UN human rights system and announced its intention to disengage from and defund the Human Rights Council, as well as boycott its Universal Periodic Review, both of which are supported by the High Commissioner’s Office. The United States should make clear that any prospect for reconsideration of support would be jeopardized if Turk is reappointed.

    Over the next 14 months, significant elections and appointments will take place throughout the UN system. While the United States reviews its relationship with and future support for all international organizations, it is likely to remain engaged with many out of practicality or necessity. Fair enough, but if the Trump administration chooses engagement, it is imperative that it make its preferences clear: Reform, relevance, restraint and abjuration of antisemitism are all critical criteria. The UN needs a regular reminder that the United States, as a veto-wielding member of the Security Council and a major funder, cannot be crossed without consequences.