A (3:19)

Drama, drama, drama. Raj, you always say that more important are the conversations that are happening behind the scenes as opposed to what's happening on the stage or what we might actually get to see. So what are you looking out for behind the scenes?

B (3:32)

Yeah, I think there's two big stories that are happening in this kind of, in the hallway conversations. One is around UN 80. UN 80 is the reform of the UN system. The Secretary General has put it forward. Just a few days ago they released a progress report, talks about some significant changes like the concept of UNDP and UNOPS merging. You know, they used to be together once many years ago, and now it is to bring them back together again. The idea that UN AIDS would sunset, it would go away as early as next year, and a number of other kind of restructuring and efficiency gains within the system. Now that is itself fairly controversial because you've got tens of thousands of employees around the world in the UN system who are saying, wait, I'm going to lose my job over this reform. And some of them are questioning whether the reform is strategic enough. Is it? Does it really make sense in terms of the long term mission of the UN and the people it's designed to serve. Others are saying, hey, this clubby atmosphere at the UN has led to the top dogs keeping their jobs. There's very few, you know, under secretary generals losing roles. And there was a proliferation of those roles over the last decade or two. So there's a big controversy around what that reform looks like. On the other hand, many of the leaders I'm speaking to on the sidelines say this reform does not go anywhere near enough because the budget cuts are going to be much worse than expected. It's not just the U.S. this is not the end of the U.S. cutting. It might be, there might be more. And of course, OECD countries, European countries, they might cut to look at the politics there as well. So there's a question as to whether this reform is significant enough, it's going to last, whether the reform Actually is what the institution needs to survive and do its. Do its role in the world, the necessary role in the world going forward. And finally, it's all happening at the time when the race for the next Secretary General is on. So people are saying, hey, hang on a second. This Secretary General is putting forward this reform that's itself controversial, maybe doesn't go far enough, while candidates for the job have to get out there and campaign and have a vision and come in and adopt this reform, just execute it, or do they want to change it? So there's massive disrupt, conversation, drama, to use Collins words, on the sidelines, related to UN reform and the SG race.

A (5:44)

Yeah, Colm, I think you want to jump in there on the race for the Secretary General, right?

C (5:48)

Well, yeah, I'll go to that. But first on the UN 80, the reform initiative, what's also interesting about that is the Secretary General has outlined his basic proposals. And as Raj mentioned, they talk about merging some of the UN agencies, eliminating UN AIDS at the end of 2026. But what's interesting is that the UN is not a unified organization. All of the agencies have, have their own executive boards, they have their own leadership, they have their own charters. And so they don't necessarily follow the rules of the Secretary General. So the day after he introduced his proposal, UNAIDS came out with a press release with their own reform initiative, which did not involve them closing their doors in a year. It had steep cuts, it had other things, but it very much saw a path forward for unaids. You're likely to see this sort of thing with all the other agencies. They're going to get together the leadership with their boards, and they're going to make up their decisions for themselves. And we are also going to see now that it passes from the hands of the Secretary General to the membership. They're going to negotiate the hell out of this thing. And there is no real indication that what you see at the end of this is going to look anything like what we've seen going into the process. So that's kind of interesting. On the reform front, the. The Secretary General race is like, you know, it's like always in play. Right. We've been writing about it for the last year, but this is the time of year when it becomes real, it becomes formal. The General assembly has come up with what they hope are sort of a new, more involved set of rules about how the process plays out. There's been long historical resentment that too much of the decision is just a decision by the five members of the Security Council, the General assembly has been trying to set up a process. They did some of it the first time that Guterres ran for office, and it probably helped him win because he was not in the region that everybody thought should get the job, Latin America. But he performed quite well in the interview. So you'll have interviews, you'll have proper campaigning, they'll have to do interviews, interactive engagement with the General assembly and all that sort of thing. And they will have to disclose their, you know, finance sources of financial support for their campaign, something that's almost unimaginable in the past. So the whole set of procedures to make it a little bit more open, a little bit more democratic, but also from the General Assembly's perspective, gives them a role and a real hand in helping to pick the Secretary General. So it isn't just the big powers.

B (8:23)

But the big powers, I think, are going to be, still have the veto power. Right. So, you know, as a result, in the end, it's almost this impossible unicorn of a candidate that has to come through. They have to be acceptable to Russia, China and the United States, the Trump administration. And they have to have some kind of a vision for reforming this institution that is in the middle of this very disruptive financial crisis. And they have to suggest that they can play some role, some traditional role of the UN in peacekeeping around the world, in quieting down the many conflicts around the world where people think the UN is not doing enough today. So who can get through that gauntlet?

C (9:01)

Right.

B (9:01)

That is a very challenging process to get through.

A (9:04)

Who indeed? And speaking of UN reform and unicorns as well, I find this moment really unique. This is my second. Anga Colm. I'm curious, what number are you at, andraj?

B (9:15)

I think 15, something like that.

C (9:17)

Yeah, I paid him.

B (9:19)

I think Colm beats me handily. Yeah.

A (9:21)

Okay. So my question is this seems like there's this attack on multilateralism and countries are looking inward. And have you seen anything similar? And what kind of person, like, we spoke about a unicorn. What kind of person can navigate these challenges?

C (9:37)

So I would say if you think back to last year, the whole discussion was around the Pack for the Future, a digital compact. It was all focused on the future. It was like, how does the UN make itself more relevant for, you know, a changing information society that we all live in? This year, it's very much simply about cuts. It's, you know, the Secretary general introduced his UN 80 initiative, a series of austerity members going back to March, and it's all about cuts. And one of the reasons why it's proven so popular among, you know, experts of the un, but also staff is there's a question of whether it is really designed to make the UN more relevant. I mean, one of the issues in the past was, and I think this goes to the question of the race for the Secretary General. Last year, the GA was very much focused on trying to reach some sort of bargain between the north and the south, where the south, you know, would gain ground in terms of, you know, some renegotiation of the international financial architecture, funding for climate, for health issues, debt relief. These were all at the forefront of the discussion last year. Now, those look like those are not going to be. I mean, they will come out into speeches, but that is not. Does not look like where things are headed. It looks like we're going in the reverse. You know, a year ago, two years ago, everybody was talking about Mia Motley as kind of the champion of this kind of effort to strike a bargain between the north and the South. I think it would be hard to imagine her coming up to the forefront of this race this year, although I think she's already decided that she's going to continue her political role in Barbados.

B (11:25)

Which is itself kind of a moment. Right. You're right. She was on the ascendancy. Everybody was talking about Mia Motley. She was inspiring the world. And now she's not even going to throw her hat in the ring to be a Secretary General.

C (11:37)

Yeah. And now people are talking about Rafael Grossi, who is the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as someone who might be able to draw the support of the big powers. But also, you know, in previous races, sometimes you can peak too early, and this is very, very early in the race. So if you are looking good, you know, before the final decision is made, you know, you may sort of set yourself up for a fall. So, you know, it could very well be that we wind up with someone that nobody's talking about, nobody's thinking about, can be very unpredictable.

B (12:09)

Yeah, it's interesting. Many of the candidates are doing exactly what column is saying. They're kind of hanging in the background. You know, former President Santos of Colombia, there's a whisper campaign that he's seriously considering the race, but he's waiting. He's going to see how the race develops. And it is, because it is such a challenging thing, the more you say, the worse your chances are.

C (12:26)

Right.

B (12:27)

Might say something that some country doesn't like. So it is a very strange way to select the leader of an institution that matters so much in the world and is in the middle of a massive reform.

C (12:36)

Yeah. Also, I mean, I think something worth noting is that there was real momentum for having a woman Secretary general. It's been 80 years. There has never been a woman at the head of the United Nations. A resolution came out of the General assembly in the last, probably a week or two ago in which the language of that resolution encourages states to put forward women candidates in some of the earlier negotiations in the year. And this is something the Latin Americans who think that it's their turn, they have been putting forward a lot of very prominent female candidates. But you know, the Trump administration, Russia, others in a number of closed door meetings are basically saying, we don't want any of this. We want, we do not want any language encouraging states to support women for the candidacy. They haven't won those, they haven't won those debates internally. But, you know, they are two P5 members and they will have, you know, a decisive role on how this plays out.

B (13:39)

Last time around, Remy, there were 13 candidates for secretary general. Seven of them, a majority were women. They did not get very far and we ended up with Guterres. There's been this big movement, as Colm says. I actually just got off stage at an event at the UN with three of the women who ran last time and lost and have gotten together and are pushing and promoting a woman candidate this time around. And one of the arguments they make, which is compelling to me at least, is this is an institution just like all big institutions that's lost a lot of public trust. The public is more and more skeptical of big institutions and not having a woman yet again suggests, hey, this process, it really is kind of an old boys club and it's not representative of the world and of the public. Whereas if they could get a leader who's a fresh face, who is the first woman head of the un, that might kind of give people a chance to take a fresh look at this institution and give it some more attention in the world.

A (14:30)

I'm a big fan of that and big fan of that movement, but also quite skeptical on whether that'll actually happen because it's like you say, they usually just don't make it to those final rounds. Are you interested in the intersection of business and social impact? Do you want to know how corporate sustainability, esg, impact investing and more can contribute to development finance? My name is Adva Saldinger. I'm a senior reporter at Devex and I've been reporting on these issues for nearly a decade. I'm the author of devex Invested, our free weekly newsletter dedicated to development fund finance. Every Tuesday, we explore how companies, investors and market mechanisms are reshaping the world of development finance. Visit devex.com newsletters and join us on Tuesdays. I wanted to go back to the UN reform process because I think a lot of people agree that it's important for the institution to change. But there are a lot of questions around how it's reforming and there's also questions around whether this is being pushed through, whether this is happening too quickly and if there's enough thoughts being put through the process and if it'll actually result in a better UN that's fit for purpose. How do you see this process playing out?

C (15:51)

Well, I've been around for a long time and I've seen a lot of previous reform efforts and frankly, particularly the old days when I wrote for sort of more mainstream newspapers and magazines, when I would hear the word reform, almost my brain would shut off because I kind of, you recognize that there will be, you know, a kind of an effort to come up with what is a fairly reasonable reform, a series of ideas, and I've seen it so many times go through the final negotiating process with member states and you know, they're all trying to protect their own interests as very difficult to come out of that process with a real, you know, ambitious, transformative reform. You know, I mean, there was some talk at the beginning of this of merging some of the big agencies like the peacekeeping department and Political Affairs. But you know, you got to realize that at the UN there are you know, essentially five cabinet members. They are the five permanent members and they have like the top jobs in the un. And so Political affairs is run by an American. Peacekeeping is run by a French national. And they have been for, you know, for years. And so are the French going to give up their US Jeep position? Are the Americans going to give up their USG position? Will the Chinese give up their position in desa? No, they're not. I mean, that's just not going to happen. And then you go down the food chain to sort of mid level powers and they've been, you know, a lot of what they focus on is getting jobs for their nationals in key important positions. And so, you know, you have very influential countries who are just, you know, not going to want to lose ground on that front.

A (17:33)

So Raj, do you have any faith in the process?

B (17:35)

Well, one of the things I wonder about with this process, that the Americans are in many ways in the driver's seat and it's because they are 22% of the budget. And they're using in sort of the Trump, you know, art of the deal style approach to negotiation. They're using that as leverage over the institution. And they're saying, hey, you know, we'll spend $0 instead of 22%, we'll hold back everything unless we get the kinds of reforms that we want. And I guess, I wonder, and maybe you have a thought about this column, like, how does that play out at some stage, although reforms are really hard and column's right, they haven't really happened in the past. Money has a way of focusing the mind. And if at the end, there just simply isn't the money because the US Is holding it back and other countries refuse to fill the gap of the US Right, they don't want to be seen as sort of supplementing what the US Is not spending on. And then you add to that firing people at the UN Is not a cost free exercise. Right. People have real labor rights at the UN for good reason. And so some of them get paid out quite a significant amount of salary and benefits. If they lose their role, is the UN going to say, sorry, we don't have the money and we're not, we're going to pay that. So you kind of need money to save money.

C (18:44)

Right?

B (18:44)

It costs money to make these reforms. In 2017, the last time Guterres tried to do a reform, it sort of failed for the same reason. Right. He had these big visions about a unified UN at the country level. He went to the US and he said, give me some money to support this, to hire out these people and build out this competence. And essentially government said no. So I guess, Colm, how do you think this will actually play out with the US Using this big hammer over the process?

C (19:09)

Right. So, I mean, I think you're absolutely right. I think what we've all discovered over the last six months is how powerful the purse is in Washington and how closely controlled it is by the White House rather than Congress. And so. And the degree to which the entire development and humanitarian sector was propped up by American taxpayer funding. So that is changing. I think one of the issues is for a lot of people, the UN and member states is not clear well, what does the United States actually want? And as I mentioned, the whole dilemma over peace and security, that's what the Americans say that they want the UN to focus more on. But I'm not clear yet what the plan is. And also, you know, the world is changing. So, you know, Raj is right. The Americans pay 22% of the regular budget. They pay, it's complicated, but they pay 25% of the peacekeeping budget. Well, China now pays 20% of the regular budget and 23% of the peacekeeping budget. So you have a major player, a political, major geopolitical rival of the US which is emerging as, you know, as a key funder of the organization. Japan and Germany's share has been shrinking quite dramatically over the years. And Chinese diplomats now are pretty openly, they're not secret about it, they're demanding more senior roles. They've been quite active in promoting entry level people over the last few years. They have hundreds more interns at the un The United States has, they have, you know, they have more than a dozen more junior professional officers, which is a sort of way in at the ground floor to get into the UN than the United States has. So, you know, there are other challenges with resources at this stage. The Chinese are not, and you know, have not expressed an ambition, an ambition to run the entire global system, the multilateral system. But, you know, the Americans, you know, are not the only game in town. They're the, they're still the most important one. But increasingly, you know, the world is, is more, you know, it's, it's not as unipolar as it was 10 years ago.

A (21:24)

That's actually a question that keeps me up at night and probably a lot of people, what do the Americans actually want? And Raj, you described this as leverage and sort of seeing this playing out, but I think so are you saying that we're not actually going to see the cuts that are proposed, but we might actually get to. Do you foresee us getting to a different number and not the massive cuts that are proposed at the moment?

B (21:46)

I think we might ultimately get to even bigger cuts because it's not just a story about the US it's also a question of whether other countries, some of the ones that column just mentioned, are willing to step up and fund more. There's a chance that this is just round one of a series of cuts that end up having to take place. And that would argue if that's right, that would argue for the UN trying to do deeper cuts now and kind of one and done, right, get it over, over with versus dragging this out. But it's a real question mark because we don't know what the politics are going to be in Germany where you see right wing movements there doing very well in the polls, or in the UK where the labor government is quite weak at the moment, even though they control the government. And you see similar stories across many of the traditional countries you would look to to support the U.N. i do think there might be the growth of kind of a new coalition countries that are going to lead this reform. If the US Is not leading it, the US Is kind of sitting on the sidelines and saying, you know, we're going to take our toys and go away. Well, who steps up? And countries like Canada, Norway, Spain, Germany. These are the kind of countries, Mexico, I know Colm, you've talked about. These are the kind of countries that might decide to work together and try to have some productive process that leads to a legitimate reform with serious cost cuts. But as Colm says, there's no guarantee we end up there. I mean, this is a very fraught process. It could drag out over several years, not just one.

A (23:06)

So do you foresee that we'll be speaking about this same process next year? Raj alluded to how difficult it is to actually make these cuts. And I've seen it happening, like in organizations like the WHO where you make the commitment to make these cuts. And I think Tedro is committed to cutting down his leadership team by almost half. But then once you've done that, you now have to think about the payouts. And these are probably the most expensive people that you have to pay out. Do you see us talking about this for the next couple of years, Khalil?

C (23:36)

Well, we just destroyed our own development agency and that.

A (23:40)

And that happened really quickly.

C (23:42)

Yeah. And that's a powerful message that, you know, to the world that, you know, if the US Is prepared to do that at home, why wouldn't they do it internationally? So, you know, I think if you go back to the first Trump administration, you had similar conversations, debates within the US and you had the Office of Management and Budget was also proposing the same sort of draconian cuts to UN Spending. But you had others in the administration, you had the State Department pushing back, you had USAID pushing back, you had Congress pushing back. And they would say, thank you very much, but that's not happening. Well, that is a different world we live in right now where Congress is absolutely passive in the face of many of the policies coming out of the White House. And it's, as I mentioned earlier, it's not clear to what degree the diplomats, I guess, the State Department, which seems to want to engage at some level, to what degree they win the discussion over the Budget Office. And I'm not clear at this point how that's going to play out.

B (24:50)

I have heard from some people, so Far. I know GA week just began. Some more optimism. You know, there are some people who say, look, we've kind of gotten through the reckoning period over in the U.S. in the State Department, USAID, and now things are settling a little bit, and there are now some serious professionals running some of these areas who are actually going to be here in New York this week, and they're more constructive. It's not about tearing down now. You know, yes, the budget is much smaller, but they're looking for within that budget, how do they maximize the impact that they have. There are other people who say to me, look, none of us thought the UN Worked very well before, right? Very inefficient. Way too many mandates, lots of overlapping mandates, a Cobb's web of bureaucracy here. And actually, we kind of maybe need to use this moment to get a UN that better serves the people it's meant to serve and the mandates and missions it's meant to serve. The humanitarian space is a great example where even after lots of years and lots of pressure, including from communities like the one gathered in front of us here, you know, the UN system basically spends almost nothing on local humanitarian action. It's essentially funded all through UN Agencies. And there's a real sense that maybe there's a different model that could evolve out of this. So as tough as these reforms might be, budget cutting is not fun. People losing their jobs is an awful thing, but maybe you actually end up with a more effective UN System at some stage down the road.

A (26:10)

I hear a lot of that people describing this, or maybe struggling to describe this as an opportunity because there are real world impacts in it. But then it could be an opportunity, actually do things better. We're coming to the end of our conversation, but I just want to hear from the two of you, what are two or three things that you're looking forward to this week?

B (26:28)

Well, one is I'm trying to talk to as many of the candidates for Secretary General as I can. I've spoken to a few already, and it's an interesting thing to hear, you know, how they're campaigning and what their vision might be, because, you know, it's not over yet. The Guterres term is not over yet, but I think the. The next person who comes through is going to have a really important role to play on what this institution ends up being. So that's. That's one of the big things that I'm looking at. I'm also interested in some of the Trump administration officials that are visiting New York, not the headliners. But the folks who are now making decisions on global health, on global development inside the administration and hearing from them because again, I'm hearing positive things from some of the practitioner community that there's there's a sense they want to be constructive. So I'm eager to hear some of what their message is this week.

C (27:09)

And Kala so I guess this is obvious, but I'm really curious to hear what Trump has to say. And I'm also curious about what the Americans plan to do. Some of the mid level officials. I believe there's going to be a meeting later in the world about later in the world later in the week about free speech and a very different version of free speech than I think many people here are used to hearing. And that would be along the lines of J.D. vance's critique of the Europeans about, you know, censorship of, you know, his claims of censorship of conservative groups. So I think that's a message that you'll hear on migration. I think there will be an effort to I think Christopher Landau, the deputy secretary of state, will be talking about migration and US Effort to try and kind of export some of the fundamental ideas that the new administration has taken on migration and limiting migration and refugees. Asylum seekers could only have, you know, temporary asylum. It wouldn't be a permanent status. A whole series of other that's that that asylum, you know, aspirants wouldn't be able to necessarily pick the country that they wanted to go to to seek asylum, a number of other things. So I think that there's going to be, you know, where they kind of understand where they want to go. There will be an effort to try and internationalize some of the policies that we see in the US Anti abortion would be another issue.

A (28:43)

Thanks so much and I'm looking forward to your newsletters. Colm Colm is going to have two more newsletters. So if you aren't signed up to Devex Newswire, if you sign up for Devex Newswire, you'll be able to get columns, two more newsletters in your inbox. And if you don't, I suggest you follow Raj on social media. He has so much information whenever we have any of these big moments and he does this sort of walking and talking thing that I find fascinating. I'm very impressed with that and looking forward to that. Thank you so much.

C (29:11)

Great. Thank you very much.

B (29:13)

Thank you so much.

C (29:13)

Ruby.