Candidates seeking to become the next United Nations secretary-general have “fallen into the trap” of allowing debates over staffing cuts and bureaucracy to overshadow the organization’s purpose, according to Pedro Abramovay, Open Society Foundations’ vice president, programs, told PassBlue, ahead of the annual meeting of world leaders at the UN General Assembly. The foundation is the world’s largest private donor of independent groups working for rights, equity and justice.

In the recent interview, Abramovay said the candidates — now numbering seven, after Michelle Bachelet of Chile dropped out on Sept. 19 — have faced enormous pressure to emphasize their ambitions to make staff cuts and downsize the UN. That misplaced focus puts the organization’s dwindling inability to manage some of the world’s most intractable problems as a secondary issue.

“If we’re going to even address the bureaucracy, we need that vision,” Abramovay said. “In some of the debates, that vision has emerged, but I think there is too much pressure to make the debate about issues that are much less relevant, and many times the candidates have fallen into that trap.”

Secretary-General António Guterres’s term ends on Dec. 31. The General Assembly will appoint his successor based on the recommendation of the Security Council, and the new UN boss is expected to take office on Jan. 1. No woman has ever held the position. Currently, there are four women candidates and three men.

The next leader should be “hopefully, the first woman,” Abramovay noted, but stressed that the candidate must deliver consensus through leadership, and not just through compromise. The General Assembly’s 81st session opened Sept. 8 under the theme, “Restoring trust, managing transformation: A United Nations that delivers for all.” The high-level week runs Sept. 22-28, with major meetings covering climate action, sea-level rise, pandemic preparedness, racial justice, artificial intelligence as well as the wide-ranging geopolitical crises plaguing many corners of the world.

For Abramovay, who previously held numerous key posts with Brazil’s Ministry of Justice, the test for UNGA81 is whether the UN can reassert the value of multilateralism amid conflict and division. “The UN was built and existed in the last 80 years in a very polarized world,” he said, rejecting geopolitical tensions as explanation for the institution’s weaknesses.

Yet when asked whether the UN can lead multilateral engagement, he answered: “Right now, no.” Its governance and structure, he added, have prevented it from using its ability to convene powerful and less-powerful countries in building consensus and proposing solutions.

The interview has been edited for clarity and condensed for brevity. — DAMILOLA BANJO

PassBlue: You have many events planned around UNGA81. What are OSF’s expectations for the session?

Abramovay: To make sure that most countries, civil society and think tanks understand that not only is multilateralism not dead, but it is the only possibility for the world to solve problems as big as the consequences that we’re seeing on AI, climate change, peace and the economic challenges that we face right now.

I think all those attempts to challenge multilateralism have, in the end, failed. People who thought that it was possible to solve the crisis in the Middle East or in Iran with war or with power, saw that it’s definitely not that simple. We know that a solution will come through negotiation, through multilaterals and through the respect of international law and human rights. I think it’s a moment to focus on reaffirming the need for multilateralism to solve the crisis and the problems that we’re seeing in the world.

PassBlue: Can the UN lead such multilateral engagement despite its own current challenges of budget cuts, layoffs, effectiveness and reputational criticisms?

Abramovay: We have a tendency to think that our times are more gray, or that the world is at risk in a way that it has never been before. That’s not necessarily true. The UN has survived the inclusion of new members that came after colonization, has survived genocides and crises that challenged the Charter of the UN. It survived the brink of a nuclear war.

The conditions that are not making the UN work are not external. It’s not the challenge of having someone like Trump or someone like Putin; this is not the problem, because we have had at least the same level of problematic leaders and crises in the world before. We need to have a UN and the ability of different countries to recognize the power of the UN to address those problems. I think we’ve shied away a bit in the last years, but we should look much more internally than externally to think about the inability of the UN to address some of those crises.

PassBlue: What can the UN realistically do about internal reform amid the General Assembly’s high-level week, Sept. 22-28, when world leaders descend on the organization in New York City?

Abramovay: If what happens inside the room is totally disconnected with the pressure that comes from the nation — from the concrete economic, social challenges that people are facing at the national level — then the UN won’t address the challenge.

If we can bring the concerns about AI regulation, about the dramatic events of climate change on the ground, the issues of taxing wealth in a way that is fair for everyone and that can generate income for the poorest country, those are the things that can revitalize the UN. If the UN closes itself on the technocratic perspective of what issues can create consensus between the specialists and advance, then it won’t regain the legitimacy that it needs.

This goes also for issues of human rights. The advance that we are seeing and the call for accountability in the case of Gaza didn’t come from the experts of international law, although we all knew that international law was being violated. It came from the pressure of civil society in the specific countries that are making the countries move their position. That connection between the concrete reality in the countries and what happens in the UN for me is where the change can come.

PassBlue: Are the current secretary-general candidates equipped to make the UN more effective and do they each offer a clear vision for its future?

Abramovay: I wouldn’t give specific assessments on the specific candidates. There is a division in the debate. It’s been about how to cut the bureaucracy or how to reduce it — of course there are important elements. But the important debate should be: What’s the role of the UN? What’s the role of international law? How can countries cooperate in their benefits? Where are the issues that they can cooperate in?

When that vision emerges and people can connect the UN with the issues that are affecting people locally and are important for people — and because they’re important for people, they are important at the national political level for the representatives — the UN becomes relevant for each member state. Then we’re going in the right direction.

If the discussion is too much on how many people in New York and what’s the size of the staff, those are issues that are much less relevant. They are taking too much of the debate about the UN. That’s not what’s missing right now. If we’re going to even address the bureaucracy, we need that vision. In some of the debates that vision has emerged, but there is too much pressure to make the debate about issues that are much less relevant, and many times the candidates have fallen into that trap.

PassBlue: How should the UN provide leadership on AI?

Abramovay: We have competition between superpowers right now that makes the economic discussion sometimes more relevant than the rights base. But there is enough outcry in the world now to pressure countries to have a global discussion on that. There isn’t any organization better placed than the UN to do that.

We need to have a conversation that has both the countries that are receiving the data centers and the countries that are developing the new technologies. We can have a competition between the economic powers on this, but there are threats that are emerging that can put humanity at risk. This is the kind of challenge that we need the UN for, and we are seeing stakeholders taking action and emerging in a role that definitely the UN could be playing.

PassBlue: What can philanthropy realistically sustain as funding for peace, development and human rights declines?

Abramovay: I think it’s very important to realize that philanthropy can and will never replace the state. We can’t replace the state at the local level. We need to support local citizens to make sure they can fight for local states that have the ability to generate public services. Philanthropy can’t replace governments, but they also can’t replace international cooperation. Philanthropy has a role to play there, but the core of it, of course, will be through international cooperation.

PassBlue is a past recipient of grants from OSF.