Dag Hammarskjöld, the United Nations’ second secretary-general, once offered what remains perhaps the clearest statement of the organisation’s purpose. The UN, he said, “was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell”. The remark reflected the hard lessons of the first half of the 20th century, when two world wars, genocide, imperial conquest and the horrors of the Holocaust and Hiroshima devastated much of the globe. The UN was never intended to create a perfect international order; it was designed to prevent the recurrence of such catastrophes. Eighty years after its founding, that mission looks increasingly precarious.
Armed conflicts are multiplying. Nuclear risks have returned to strategic calculations. International law is under pressure, while the Security Council, the world’s principal instrument of collective security, is frequently paralysed by the rival interests of its permanent members. When cooperation is most needed, faith in multilateralism is ebbing as great-power rivalry thrives. Against this backdrop, the race to succeed António Guterres, whose term ends in December 2026, has assumed unusual significance. The next secretary-general will inherit what has often been described as the “most impossible job” on Earth. Yet there are moments when impossible jobs matter most.
Erosion of collective security
The next UN chief will take office as the restraints that have helped contain international rivalry since 1945 visibly weaken. For all its shortcomings, the post-war order achieved something remarkable: It prevented World War III. Proxy wars, regional conflicts and repeated crises occurred, but direct military confrontation between the major powers was avoided. Colonial empires disappeared, dozens of new nations emerged, and institutions of international cooperation often prevented local conflicts from becoming global disasters. Today, those achievements are under strain. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the devastation in Gaza, widening conflicts across West Asia, tensions in the South China Sea and the erosion of arms-control agreements all point to a world more willing to rely on force and coercion. Many smaller countries feel like mere spectators rather than participants in shaping the international order.
It is in moments such as these that the secretary-general’s role assumes particular importance. The office’s most successful occupants understood that preserving peace required more than administrative competence. Hammarskjöld helped navigate the Suez crisis and transformed peacekeeping into a practical instrument of conflict management. U Thant quietly created diplomatic space during the Cuban missile crisis, while Javier Pérez de Cuéllar helped broker settlements from Afghanistan to Central America and contributed to the Cold War’s peaceful conclusion. Kofi Annan became a moral voice for peace and humanity and was widely described as the “secular Pope”. Their influence rested not on formal authority but on credibility, discretion and the ability to help governments change course without appearing to surrender. That tradition has faded.
Legitimacy deficit
The secretary-general still commands a global platform unmatched by most political leaders. Yet the office has become increasingly cautious in using that authority. When governments hesitate to speak uncomfortable truths, excessive caution carries its own risks. The next secretary-general should not merely respond to crises but identify dangers before they erupt. Too often, the international community mobilises only after violence and humanitarian disasters have escalated. The most immediate challenge is the widening gulf among the major powers. Relations between the US, China and Russia have deteriorated sharply. The office requires someone capable of combining public candour with private persuasion. Its greatest asset may be the ability to keep conversations alive when others stop talking.
Recent setbacks in negotiations on nuclear disarmament, pandemic preparedness and plastic pollution illustrate a broader problem. International negotiations now struggle to move beyond entrenched positions. Diplomatic breakthroughs rarely occur by accident. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Paris climate agreement emerged through painstaking negotiations that uncovered common ground despite profound differences. The UN should invest more in mediation, negotiation support and conflict-resolution capacity.
The organisation also faces a legitimacy crisis. Across much of the Global South, governments believe the international system applies its principles inconsistently. Frustration over Security Council reform has accumulated for decades, while institutions designed in 1945 continue to reflect a world that no longer exists. Whether the next secretary-general comes from Latin America or the Caribbean, whose turn it is under the informal regional rotation, geography alone will not solve that problem. What matters is whether the office becomes a persistent advocate for a more representative international order.
Paradox of multilateralism
The UN must also adapt to a changing landscape in which cities, universities, philanthropic foundations, civil-society organisations and private-sector actors possess capabilities once associated almost exclusively with states. During periods of governmental deadlock, these networks often remain capable of advancing cooperation. Perhaps the greatest challenge lies not within institutions but in political culture. The generation that experienced world war, genocide and nuclear brinkmanship required little persuasion about the consequences of international failure. Today’s leaders are more distant from those experiences, even as many of the dangers that inspired the UN’s creation have returned.
The next secretary-general cannot restore the UN’s relevance alone. But the office can remind governments and the public that multilateralism is not idealism but a practical necessity. Climate change, pandemics, mass displacement, cyber insecurity and nuclear proliferation do not respect borders. As Kofi Annan observed, they are “problems without passports”. The next secretary-general will inherit an organisation under financial pressure, confronting geopolitical fragmentation and facing widespread scepticism about its effectiveness. Yet the history of the UN offers a paradox. The organisation has seldom been most valuable when relations among states were harmonious. Its greatest contributions often came during periods of intense division, when channels of communication were scarce, and mistrust was abundant.
The secretary-general cannot end wars by decree or reshape international politics alone. What the office can do is create opportunities for diplomacy, preserve lines of communication and expand the political space in which compromise becomes feasible. The job remains impossible. The alternative, however, is a world in which nobody is left trying to save humanity from hell.
Tharoor, MP, served the UN from 1978-2007. He was India’s candidate for SG in 2006, and came second out of seven candidates. Mathew is a former UN spokesperson and a commentator on contemporary affairs
