The Jakarta Post
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsThe UN cannot, and need not, wait for consensus
At the United Nations' 81st General Assembly, member states will be close to choosing the next secretary-general, who will immediately be confronted not only by many global crises, but also by the UN’s diminished finances.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Set as preferred source
The United Nations (UN) logo is seen on a gate outside the UN headquarters ahead of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York. the United States, on Sept. 21, 2025. (AFP/Kena Betancur)
W
hen leaders from around the world meet in New York City, the United States, for the United Nations' 81st General Assembly this month, it will be no ordinary gathering. Member states will be close to choosing the next secretary-general, who will immediately be confronted not only by many global crises, but also by the UN’s diminished finances. With some member states not fully meeting their financial obligations to the organization, the UN has already had to slash its 2026 budget by 9 percent and eliminate around one-fifth of its workforce, leading outgoing Secretary-General António Guterres to warn that “the current trajectory is untenable”.
Yet the UN remains essential. It was created to help us maintain peace, prevent wars, protect human rights, support sustainable development, set global norms and uphold international law. No other international organization can claim the same degree of universal legitimacy. But universal membership and legitimacy come with tradeoffs. Reaching a consensus takes time, and negotiations can produce compromises that do not adequately address the problems they were supposed to solve. Given these limitations, the UN system needs partners that can complement its work.
That is why governments and their citizens have long turned to smaller “coalitions of the willing”, under the banner of “plurilateralism”, in cases where consensus is not possible. Plurilateral organizations have emerged to address everything from climate-related issues and extractive industries to human rights and trade. Because the members of such coalitions share values, goals, or interests, they can agree, innovate and act together more quickly. Such pragmatic arrangements were what Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney had in mind in his landmark “middle powers” speech in Davos in January.
Of course, not all plurilateral organizations are the same. Some are mere talking shops, but others have emerged as effective platforms for experimentation and coordinated policymaking. Some provide concrete standards for how countries should act, while others let members choose their own commitments. Some open the conversation to the public, while others remain behind closed doors. And some hold their members accountable for delivering on their promises, while others do not.
But often absent from discussions about our new “variable geometry,” as Carney calls it, is the question of whether plurilateral institutions strengthen or weaken democracy. Having witnessed firsthand the importance of strong plurilateral arrangements during my time as chair of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and as an administrator of the United Nations Development Programme, I can attest that this is no academic question.
Consider the critical minerals that will power the next generation of clean energy. Because the issue touches on everything from climate, trade and energy to security and human rights, no fewer than eight plurilateral initiatives are in the works to secure future supplies. Some have clear standards, like bans on child slavery or mining in war-torn areas, and requirements for independent audits, civil-society participation and parliamentary oversight. But others are just exclusive trade deals, the lowest common denominator of critical-minerals governance.
Many governments and much of the private sector, of course, want their clean energy to come with minimal environmental costs and no human exploitation. But hoping for these standards to be upheld is not enough. If their payments are ultimately pocketed by warlords, or if human-rights standards are not consistently monitored and enforced, we will repeat some of the worst mistakes of the fossil-fuel era.
