Opinion: Why the UN’s recent Africa relocation news matters

The United Nations’ decision to relocate key agency offices to Nairobi is more than logistical — it’s a chance to decolonize global governance and center Africa, where it already plays an operational lead. Earlier this year, it was announced by U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres and the government of Kenya that the global offices of UNICEF, UNFPA, and UN Women will be relocated — either in part or in full — to Nairobi by 2026. Some observers have framed the move narrowly as cost-saving, especially given a widespread spate of aid cuts across the world. However, this narrative downplays the most significant aspect of the move — that it could well mark an encouraging step toward localizing the U.N., through redistributing decision-making power, leadership, and institutional presence to regions where its agencies operate most actively. Indeed, Guterres himself has emphasized that Africa is a priority and that investing in the continent is a duty for the U.N. It’s crucial. The fact is, for decades, the U.N. has remained rigid in its headquarters and leadership distribution, with decision-making power overwhelmingly concentrated in Europe and the United States. The U.N.’s overall structure today — not just its Security Council — continues to reflect a post-World War II order, dominated by the victors with outdated power dynamics. The financial dominance of the U.S. and Europe heavily influences U.N. policy and decision-making. As the largest donor, the U.S. contributes billions annually, translating into disproportionate influence. U.N. agencies openly acknowledge this donor-driven dynamic. In UNICEF’s case, U.S. support is deemed “indispensable,” not only because of its financial contributions, but also due to its longstanding control of the agency’s top leadership. Since UNICEF’s founding in 1946, every executive director has been an American, a pattern shaped by donor politics and the expectation that U.S. leadership reinforces Washington’s visibility and influence within the U.N. system. This financial influence extends into staffing patterns and internal representation. According to an April 2019 U.N. report on staff demographics, Americans make up 6.75% of the U.N.’s global workforce — the highest of any nationality. European countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Spain are also overrepresented, having more staff relative to their population size. The hiring practices at UNOCHA have been sharply criticized, with some staffers describing the office as “a neocolonial fiefdom with a particularly Anglo-Saxon complexion.” This sentiment echoes a broader concern among African U.N. staffers about systemic imbalances in representation across the U.N. As one former employee put it: “For people from the developing world, there are plenty of field jobs … but the best-paying, most senior jobs go disproportionately to Westerners.” This is supported by data collected by Development Reimagined, which shows that only 29% of top leadership posts are occupied by African nationals, with most serving as deputies. The concentration of power within the U.N. leadership is particularly striking. ​​The U.S., as a single nation alongside European countries, holds 40% of all U.N. agency head positions and 45% of deputy head roles, representing an unparalleled concentration of leadership compared to the rest of the U.N.’s over 190 member states. For 74 years, every executive director of UNICEF has been American; the World Food Programme has been led by Americans for three decades, and the deputy high commissioner for refugees post has been held by an American for 25 years. In the early years of the U.N., there was a clear tendency to appoint male candidates who were U.S. nationals, with the U.S. government often leveraging its diplomatic and financial muscle to secure its preferred choices. As one U.S. official put it during a contested UNICEF leadership race: “In light of the fact that the United States is the largest contributor to UNICEF, we strongly believe an American should have this job.” Despite objections from several European nations and calls for a candidate from a low- and middle-income country, the Clinton administration still pushed through its candidate. The African continent lies at the heart of U.N. operations — accounting for over 80% of field-based personnel. At the Security Council in 2023, of the 49 formal outcomes adopted on country or regional issues, more than half, 51%, focused on Africa. Yet despite this operational footprint, the vast majority of U.N. agency headquarters remain elsewhere, often resulting in policies that are disconnected from local realities. Even the U.N. Environment Programme and UN-Habitat, though based in Nairobi, have consistently been led by non-African nationals, raising questions not only about representation but also about the depth of local ownership and influence. The case for shifting more U.N. headquarters to Africa is not just about fairness — it is also about efficiency, responsiveness, and legitimacy. Relocating headquarters closer to where policies are implemented would improve response times, enhance coordination with regional institutions, and reduce operational costs. Crucially, it would allow African stakeholders greater access to leadership and real-time influence over strategy. As Africa prepares to become home to one of the world’s largest workforces by 2050, the practical case for proximity is undeniable. NGOs such as Oxfam, ActionAid, and Amnesty International have already shifted leadership functions to Africa, recognizing that legitimacy grows when decisions are made near those most affected. African countries with strong governance and diplomatic hubs — such as Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, and Senegal — offer viable homes for agency HQs. Agencies such as the U.N. Development Programme, the World Health Organization, and U.N. Refugee Agency could better serve their missions by being based closer to the regions they impact most. With the last African secretary-general, Kofi Annan, having served nearly two decades ago, the upcoming 2026 U.N. secretary-general elections present a critical opportunity to bridge this gap Calls to relocate U.N. headquarters are not new. But many of them are simply explained as “cost-saving.” While savings will certainly be made, this single explanation should not be the main focus. The current location entrenches inequality and undermines neutrality, including due to the U.S. visa regime and diplomatic restrictions. Relocation should be seen as an opportunity to decolonize multilateralism and place Africa at the heart of global governance. Africa is no longer a passive recipient of global policy but a key player shaping today’s economic, political, and social agenda. To stay legitimate and responsive, the U.N. must decentralize its headquarters, elevate African leadership, and ensure policies are crafted with Africa — not just for Africa.