The following speech was delivered by Michael Møller, a Kofi Annan Foundation Board member, on 22 January 2023, during a special event entitled “The Future of the United Nations in a Turbulent World” at the Danish Parliament, Copenhagen.
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Thank you very much for the invitation to reflect with you on the transition of multilateralism and the United Nations, and the choices that lie before us.
It is an honour and a pleasure to be with you today.
Much of what I will say may be familiar and even self-evident, and by some of you, maybe considered wishful thinking, but at a moment of profound global uncertainty, certain truths bear repeating.
I am here to talk with you about the future of multilateralism with the United Nations at its heart. But to understand how to get there, we need to briefly reflect on how we arrived at the present moment.
We are clearly in trouble.
The impacts of climate change are visible, immediate, and global. Extreme poverty is rising again for the first time in a generation. Famine threatens millions. Humanitarian needs are at their highest level since the Second World War.
Inequality is widening. Global health is increasingly threatened. International law and human rights are openly violated. Democracy is retreating while authoritarianism advances. Wars have returned to Europe and the Middle East, while dozens of other conflicts simmer around the world. Trust—between states, within societies, and in institutions—is eroding at an alarming speed.
Confidence in political leadership and international institutions is weakening, and simplistic, populist narratives are gaining ground.
These are not isolated crises. They reinforce one another. And our collective inability to properly address these cascading challenges threatens us all.
The picture is undeniably bleak.
And yet—perhaps counterintuitively to some —I remain an optimist.
Because if we step back and look at the past eighty years, we see something extraordinary.
Until very recently, humanity as a whole was better off than at any other point in our history.
This progress was neither accidental nor inevitable. It coincided with the establishment of a multilateral structure with the United Nations at its heart. It was the result of international cooperation, of multilateralism.
We have been living in the best of times, and yet we now face existential risks of an intensity rarely, if ever, experienced in our lifetime.
Today, this brings us to a paradox: we have been living in the best of times, and yet we now face existential risks of an intensity rarely, if ever, experienced in our lifetime.
To understand this contradiction, we need to go back nearly eighty years.
Out of the ashes of unprecedented destruction emerged a bold vision: the United Nations and the modern multilateral system. They were founded on revolutionary ideas—that law should replace violence as the basis of international relations; that all states, large and small, should have a voice; and that human rights are universal and unconditional.
Reality, of course, often fell short of these ideals. The Cold War divided the world. Colonialism persisted far too long. Nuclear weapons cast a permanent shadow. But something fundamentally changed. War itself came to be seen as illegitimate. A third world war was avoided. International cooperation enabled an extraordinary expansion of prosperity, health, and opportunity.
The impact of multilateralism on humanity can not be overstated.
So what went wrong?
Over time, success bred complacency. We naïvely began to believe that progress was inevitable—that globalization and technology would benefit everyone, that major wars were relics of the past, that markets and innovation would solve problems on their own.
This complacency bred inaction: in the face of climate change, rising inequality, the darker sides of globalisation, and disruptive technologies.
And today, we are paying the price.
Cooperation is giving way to zero-sum competition. Might is increasingly seen as right. Solidarity is weakening precisely when it is most needed.
We are witnessing a fragmentation of the international system: economically, politically, technologically, and ideologically. Cooperation is giving way to zero-sum competition. Might is increasingly seen as right. Solidarity is weakening precisely when it is most needed.
The truth is uncomfortable but unavoidable: the international system designed eighty years ago is no longer fit for purpose. But make no mistake: the world, as it has evolved, cannot do without a multilateral and a United Nations system. What is very clear is that it must be fundamentally reformed.
It is also clear that it cannot be reformed by trying to re-establish it as it was. The once popular notion of “building back better” we kept hearing after the COVID pandemic is not possible.
On the contrary, we need to build forward better! Because if yesterday’s tools were not adapted to today’s problems, they certainly won’t help us meet tomorrow’s challenges.
We no longer live in a bipolar or unipolar world, but in a complex and unstable multipolar one. Power relations are shifting. Middle powers are acting more independently. Technology—not ideology—is increasingly shaping spheres of influence.
And power itself has become diffuse, extending far beyond states to corporations, cities, scientists, philanthropists, and non-state actors of every kind.
Global governance today is no longer a chessboard of states alone; it is a dense, messy network of actors, interests, and influences.
Multilateralism must therefore evolve.
Some describe this evolution as “polylateralism”: a system that is more collaborative, more integrated, more networked, more inclusive, and more preventive—whose legitimacy is derived not from its mere presence, but from its results and impact.
This has profound implications for the United Nations.
If the UN is to remain relevant, it must be restructured to reflect today’s realities. Everyone understands that.
That means reforming the Security Council to reflect contemporary power dynamics and restore legitimacy and trust. Strengthening the General Assembly as a forum for genuine, impactful deliberations.
Break down institutional silos and operate through integrated, mission-driven structures. And creating operational ecosystems that systematically include non-state actors in decision-making and implementation.
Truly operationalize the Sustainable Development Goals across the planet so that they again become the global roadmap to peace that is so clearly needed.
In short, the UN system must move from a compartmentalised system to an integrated platform for collective action.
But it, and its member States, must, first of all, confront some uncomfortable truths as it strives to reform.
A few examples:
Across-the-board budget cuts, panic-driven decentralization, and ad-hoc staffing decisions are not reforms. They are symptoms of a system reacting to a funding crisis without a long-term, future-oriented strategy. Of decisions being taken without a clear vision of what kind of multilateral system the world will need in ten, twenty or more years.
Public understanding of what the UN actually does has always been shockingly limited – even in countries that host or work closely with it. That ignorance fuels misperceptions, and those misperceptions weaken political support.
Rectifying this is an urgent imperative and the shared responsibility of UN institutions, Governments and the Media. It is not rocket science: trust and support by our citizens will only be regained once they clearly understand what our revamped global system does for each of them in their daily lives.
Technology is transforming how individuals and institutions work. This evolution is coming at us at great speed and must be faced intelligently, strategically, and in an integrated way.
It will irrevocably and dramatically change all our lives in ways that are difficult to imagine and must be a major element in how we craft a future multilateral system.
We urgently need to break down silos. Separate entities working independently, not nearly communicating enough, is no longer viable.
We urgently need to break down silos. Separate entities working independently, not nearly communicating enough, is no longer viable. The UN should ideally be structured as a matrix management model, integrating expertise, knowledge, and operations across amalgamated institutions and aligning collective action with country-specific needs.
This also applies to governance. Reform cannot come only from governments. Political systems are short-term, constrained by narrow electoral cycles and outdated mindsets. Nor can reform come solely from within the UN. Bureaucracies are structurally set in their ways and risk-averse.
UN Administrative and management policies and practices need to be fundamentally overhauled. The Secretary-General and other senior managers must be given adequate tools to successfully and impactfully manage their outfits. The current deep and debilitating micro-management by States must cease.
The change must come from a fundamentally different policy-setting and decision-making framework—one that brings together governments, international organisations, scientists, business leaders, young people, ethicists, civil society, etc. Governance is already evolving, and governments will increasingly no longer monopolize decision-making. This decentralization process needs to be accelerated to the extent possible.
Speed is now the critical factor. The pace of technological and societal change is far faster than our capacity to respond. Unless we rethink how we govern and adapt, that gap will widen dangerously.
This brings me to the Security Council.
If one were to redesign the UN today from scratch, the Security Council, as it is currently structured and functions, would not survive. It is not representative, not effective, and often not connected enough to the realities on the ground. It reflects geopolitical realities of 80 years ago and is no longer seen as our guarantor of peace and security. Believe it or not, attempts at reform have been going on for the past 60 years without success.
The reason lies particularly with the 5 permanent veto-holding members, who so far insist on maintaining the current structure while adding only a few more members, some of them with veto powers. That, as history has shown, is a recipe for an increasingly dysfunctional Council. The result is a growing lack of trust across the world in that vital institution.
What is needed is a Council that reflects regional realities and shared responsibilities and adopts a bottom-up, broad and integrated approach to security—one that reflects the understanding that peace is not merely the absence of war, but the result of addressing the integrated and complex causes of conflict. As Kofi Annan often reminded us, there can be no peace without development, no development without peace, and neither without human rights.
I am therefore suggesting a two-tier system consisting of 5 Regional UN Security Councils, each with 15 members representing their respective regions, and a 15-member Central UN Security Council composed of 3 rotating members from each regional council.
This would give rotating 75 countries a voice in global security decisions, far more than the current system. Regional councils would handle local and regional conflicts, escalating issues to the central council when necessary, particularly in cases requiring the use of force. This system would foster regional responsibility and deepen understanding, ensuring decisions are informed by local realities rather than distant political agendas.
Of course, questions will arise about membership, term lengths, the veto and criteria for participation—but these can be structured to ensure accountability and trust. This approach, combined with a matrix management system across the UN, could restore confidence in the Security Council and the rest of the system, making it a true guarantor of peace.
Speaking about structures, one last, but unfortunately, increasingly relevant consideration: If the US Administration continues with its cascade of attacks on and subversion of the United Nations, the rest of the world will very soon need to rethink the venue for its Headquarters. One cannot imagine that it can remain in New York under these circumstances.
Superficial adjustments will not suffice. The world needs systemic change.
We have the knowledge. We have the plans. We have the resources. We know what needs to be done. The past has shown that when there is the will, remarkable things are possible.
What is missing today is greater, sustained and operationalized will.
Political will. Institutional courage. And public engagement.
Governments cannot do this alone. Nor can International Organisations. They need support—from parliaments, from cities, from science, from business, and from citizens.
A good example of the way forward is the city of Geneva. As the operational heart of the United Nations, International Geneva embodies and proves what collaborative multilateralism can achieve when diverse actors work together. It’s quite an extraordinary ecosystem that touches every human being on this planet, every single day, including everyone in this room.
Only renewed, effective multilateralism can address today’s massive existential risks. But declarations are not enough. Implementation is and will be everything.
Only renewed, effective multilateralism can address today’s massive existential risks. But declarations are not enough. Implementation is and will be everything.
That is where each of us comes in.
Parliaments translate the global into the local and the local into the global. Young people bring urgency and innovation. Women’s participation and leadership are accelerating and indispensable. Science must have a permanent seat at policy and decision-making tables. And all of us must help rebuild trust in collective action.
Denmark, facing its greatest existential risk since the Second World War, is today better placed than many to understand the imperative of collective action. It would be really impactful if that understanding could be leveraged to build stronger collaborative partnerships with like-minded countries, beyond the Nordics and the EU. Successful small and midsize states binding together can have an outsized influence on the forward positive movement of our world.
I do not believe that the current fragmented reality of our world can continue for too long. We are globally at a moment in history where we must all find ways to work collectively, integrate our efforts, strengthen partnerships and break down constraining silos as we have never done before. If we do not, we will not make it. And by we, I mean humanity. The interlocking present and future existential catastrophies facing the world can only be addressed, and hopefully solved, if we confront them together.
We are at a crossroads.
One path leads toward fragmentation, nationalism, and unmanaged decline. The other leads toward a collaborative, integrated, and forward-looking multilateral system—capable of safeguarding peace, sustainability, and human dignity.
The future is not predetermined. It depends on our choices, our courage, and our willingness to act together for the world we, and our children, want to live in.
The fate of humanity is, quite literally, in our collective hands.
Thank you very much.
Michael Møller is a Danish former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and the 12th director-general of the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG). He has over 40 years of experience as an international civil servant, beginning his UN career in 1979 with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. He worked for the United Nations in different capacities in New York, Mexico, Iran, Haiti, Cyprus and Geneva.