The UN is marking its 80th anniversary with a plan for change. What might happen next? (WEF puff piece)

World Economic Forum ^ | September 8, 2025 | James Purcell, Andrej Kirn

[DoodleBob]

… While the principles the UN was founded upon remain vital – especially at a time of conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, the Democratic Republic of Congo and elsewhere – they are also facing some of their biggest tests since the organization came into being.

“This is a good time to take a look at ourselves [to] see how fit for purpose we are in a set of circumstances which, let’s be honest, are quite challenging for multilateralism and for the UN,” says UN80 Task Force Chair Guy Ryder.

The UN80 process will involve three tracks of reform. The first will aim to improve internal efficiency and effectiveness through “cutting red tape and optimizing the UN’s global footprint by relocating some functions to lower-cost duty stations”.

The second will examine the thousands of mandate documents that dictate what the UN does in order to remove those that have become outdated and “prioritise and de-prioritise” the organization’s aims and work.

The third will look at whether “structural changes and programme realignment are needed across the UN System” to simplify operations.

…

The UN has repeatedly proven its ability to fulfil its mandate, from securing the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to eradicating smallpox through the work of the World Health Organization (WHO) and creating UNICEF, which has helped millions of children receive everything from vaccinations to sanitation.

Even in the challenging context of recent years, the UN has continued proving its ability to strike major accords to help solve the world’s biggest problems. This year alone it has brought into being the Compromiso de Sevilla (a renewed global framework for financing sustainable development) and, through the WHO, the Pandemic Agreement, which will improve how the world prepares for and responds to outbreaks such as Covid-19.

[dfwgator]

They had a Nazi, Kurt Waldheim, as Secretary General.

[wjcsux]

“They had a Nazi, Kurt Waldheim, as Secretary General.”

Yep, they sure did.

[Kudsman]

The UN property is a separate entity from the rest of the country according to international law.

Well that doesn't sound fair. Can we go to Greenland, buy some land, find a fossil, donate the land. Then begin passing laws?

[Kudsman]

I really don’t know what can be done about it, but i would love to see a plank to oust it. Anyway thx the chat while i looked around. Ttyl

[butlerweave]

Klaus Schwab is out he was helping himself to WEF funds

[MikelTackNailer]

At least they'll be revered in the future.

From the movie "Idiocracy":

"But then an even greater force emerged, the Un."

"...and the Un un-nazied the world - forever."

============================================================

Seriously though; they've become the tool of the world's supervillains. Their Security and Human Rights Councils are loaded with representatives from the most despotic regimes on Earth while any decision regarding the Middle East favors the Islamic countries. It consistently libels Israel as an oppressive colonizer existing only to torment the Arab/Egyptian/Jordanian/Syrian cast-offs those countries exiled to Gaza.

Preaching to the choir...I know; but it's good to clarify.

[cpdiii]

When one considers that the UN is mostly dictator states and and Marxist states and worse, what they say is useless dialog to be ignored. Its mantra as original is great. That mantra is long gone. Today the UN is mostly Marxist theology. They need to go from our shores. That building site is worth billions. I would suggest a new location in Havana, Cuba where they will find like fellowship.

[Cronos]

The UN had a lot of bad, but it has had some good in the past such as
smallpox eradication through WHO.

The idea of countries discussing rather than going to war, is a good idea.

It needs to be executed better and on a far lower scale

[Cronos]

After 1945, the U.S. emerged as a leading global power, eager to host the new international organization to replace the failed League of Nations. The U.S. actively lobbied to host the UN, offering financial and logistical support.

Hosting the UN solidified the U.S.’s post-World War II role as a global superpower and leader of the free world. By offering New York as the headquarters, the U.S. positioned itself at the center of international diplomacy

The U.S. continues to benefit from proximity to UN deliberations, allowing easy access for American diplomats to influence UN policies, resolutions, and agendas. The U.S. Mission to the UN in New York facilitates direct engagement with representatives from all 193 member states, amplifying U.S. soft power.

The UN’s presence generates significant economic activity in New York. The UN employs thousands of staff, and the presence of 193 diplomatic missions, their staff, and families contributes to the local economy. According to a 2014 estimate by the New York City Mayor’s Office, the UN and related diplomatic activities generate over $3.7 billion annually in economic output, supporting thousands of jobs in hospitality, real estate, and services. Diplomats and UN visitors spend on housing, dining, and transportation, boosting local businesses.

the U.S. benefits from having diplomats from around the world concentrated in one place. This facilitates informal intelligence-gathering through diplomatic interactions and open-source information from UN debates and activities, helping the U.S. stay informed about global priorities and alliances.

From an American point of view, keeping friends AND enemies in a place you can observe is really good.

If the unhq was moved to Chad, intelligence gathering and pressing influence would be lower, much lower.

As to why they don’t move, the reason is partially cost. But more importantly, a lot of countries would object to moving the unhq to someplace in china (india definitely would object and vice versa) . Chad, people would say what’s the point

[Cronos]

While it definitely needs downsizing, it has done SOME good:
1. Preventing the suez crisis in the 50s from blowing up into a war
2. Oh damn, that’s about it!

Yeah, it needs to be changed.

The problem of moving it out of the USA is that it reduces American influence and intelligence gathering capabilities

[rxh4n1]

“As far as the state of New York and the city of New York, they are basically untouchable.”

They’re scofflaws. Abusing diplomatic plates with illegal parking by UN diplomats has always been an issue in NYC. Yes, diplomatic immunity covers parking fines.

[Highest Authority]

Abolish it!

[spincaster]

The first change ,is to boot them out of America.

[Kudsman]

Yeah ok. The UN is like the clot shot.

I'd rather not.

[Kudsman]

Seriously, thanks for the attempt but I think on this issue my mind is made up. We are in the information age, not the steam power age. We do not need spies and such stationed within our borders i would posit. Americans are not luddites.

[metmom]

The UN80 process will involve three tracks of reform. The first will aim to improve internal efficiency and effectiveness through “cutting red tape and optimizing the UN’s global footprint by relocating some functions to lower-cost duty stations”.

GOOD!

Get the entire organization out of our country.

[Cronos]

That’s also a valid point

[PubliusMM]

It is well past time to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.

[Mastador1]

I have a couple ideas for change, USA out of UN, UN out of USA, and UN out of USA taxpayers wallets…..or simply put UNFOAD!

[Mastador1]

Don’t you mean the headquarters to Turkmenistan, after all that’s where the Gateway to Hell is.