UN faces ‘austerity vs. reform’ dilemma as funding crisis deepens

The United Nations is grappling with simultaneous crises of funding and relevance, as its secretariat pursues controversial reforms while implementing sweeping budget cuts that some experts worry could undermine the organization’s ability to address global challenges. Ayaka Suzuki, director of strategic planning in the U.N. Secretary-General’s office, confirmed that the U.N. system has already lost roughly 20,000 posts amid sweeping austerity measures. Simply put, with $15 billion less in the U.N. system, “there’s no money, so we have to cut our budget,” Suzuki explained at a Devex Impact House event on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly this week in New York. Those austerity measures are separate from the “UN 80” initiative — billed as a once-in-a-generation overhaul ahead of the organization’s 80th anniversary. “One is austerity measures. We are having a cash problem. … U.N. 80, that is about making us more effective, better able to deliver on our mandate,” she argues. The reforms aim to overcome fragmentation, duplication, and overlaps, with Suzuki describing the process as “the most open and consultative reform process” in her 30 years at the organization. However, critics question whether the timing and approach will strengthen or further weaken the institution. Eugene Chen, senior fellow at U.N. University, noted that the U.N.’s cash shortfall stems largely from unpaid assessments by the United States and China, which together account for 42% of the regular budget. Cutting programs to adjust to the shortfall, he argued, weakens the system’s ability to deliver just as global crises multiply. “Shrinking the overall budget is not the solution,” Chen said. US policy confusion adds to uncertainty The funding crisis is compounded by mixed signals from the United States, which has proposed eliminating funding for U.N. peacekeeping while simultaneously extending mandates for missions in South Sudan and leading negotiations on a gang suppression force in Haiti. “The [Trump] administration takes a very opportunistic view of the U.N.,” Chen observed, suggesting the U.S. sees the organization as a tool for narrow national security interests rather than broader multilateral cooperation. Calls for a fundamental rethink Natalie Samarasinghe, former head of the U.N. Association-U.K., said the reform debate risks missing a more fundamental question: what the U.N. should be doing in the future. “We’ve shrunk our understanding to: the U.N. doesn’t have enough money, let’s make it more efficient,” she said. “We’re not asking whether the U.N. should be doing these things at all.” She questioned whether the U.N. should continue direct delivery of development and humanitarian assistance — which she stated accounts for 75% of the organization’s budget — rather than supporting locally led initiatives. “Most [stakeholders] would agree the U.N. shouldn’t be doing direct delivery on the ground at all. It should be locally led,” Samarasinghe said, suggesting this shift could free up significant resources for the U.N.’s core functions in norms, standards, and coordination. The debate highlights a fundamental tension about the U.N.’s future role as the organization navigates what Suzuki acknowledged are “very scary times” for multilateralism. With the race to select the next secretary-general set to kick off later this year, the moment could provide a rare opportunity to debate the U.N.’s future role in development, climate, and conflict prevention.