(4th meeting) 2026 IPU Parliamentary Hearing at the United Nations

It's our last session of the day and the last session of these hearings, so we look forward to having a very good, interesting, interested discussion full of questions. Again, our last session of the day. I will ask that you have your seat— that you take your seats as I introduce As I introduce this session, Financing and Futureproofing the United Nations. The future of the United Nations as a pillar of a strong multilateral system depends on its financing. However, as we've been hearing, for years the organization has faced a severe liquidity crisis. Critically, the UN's ability to deliver on its mandate is greatly limited by assessed contributions not being paid on time or in full, by donors' use, use of earmarked voluntary funds, and the organization's over-reliance on a few large contributors. Financing the United Nations— annual assessments, extra-budgetary contributions for peace, development, and human rights—, and the current UN80 reform initiative is the topic of this last session of these 2026 parliamentary hearings. And joining us now to help us wrestle with these thorny and important issues, we welcome Mr. Guy Ryder, Under-Secretary-General for Policy, His Excellency Ambassador Lok Bahadur Thapa, the Permanent Representative of Nepal and the President of ECOSOC. Ms. Minh Thu Pham, Co-Founder and CEO of the Starling Institute, a non-for-profit— not-profit— not-for-profit, excuse me, that builds global coalitions for reform and modernizing the multilateral system and international cooperation. And Ms. Sophia García García, Director of Advocacy and Partnerships for the 109 Coalition. And I will ask Ambassador— no, excuse me, Mr. Ryder, that you start us off with your opening statements. Over to you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator. President of ECOSOC, Ambassador Locke, dear parliamentarians, let me say that as you come to the end of your parliamentary hearings here, How important I find it that we have this discussion on the so-called future-proofing of the United Nations and the financing of the United Nations. I'm somewhat skeptical about the notion of future-proofing. I don't believe it is an obtainable objective, but we need to do as much as we can to ensure that the United Nations is fit to face the multiple challenges of the future, and an inevitable part of that endeavor has to be a sincere discussion about the financing of the United Nations, and I think you have to break that down into its component parts. Firstly, do you as parliamentarians and the member states of the United Nations take the view that the United Nations and multilateralism more generally is an endeavor worth investing in to the extent that we ask for your financial support. And if the answer to that question is yes, and we have to do everything in the United Nations to elicit a positive response to that question. [SPEAKING_JAPANESE] Well then, the subsequent question is how can we lift ourselves out of the current very difficult financial circumstances that we find ourselves in? I'm conscious that in the course of this week you have already discussed with colleagues of mine how we should strengthen the longstanding partnership between parliamentarians and the United Nations. This was an important part of the provisions of the Pact for the Future adopted in 2024. And I think the natural corollary of that is this discussion on how you as parliamentarians can play your role in ensuring the future secure financing of the organization. I'm going to start by giving you a few figures. I don't want to inundate you with statistics. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] But here are the basics of our financial circumstances. The system as a whole, the UN system as a whole, is financed to the tune of 80% of its total revenue from voluntary contributions. These are not the assessed contributions which member states are required to pay to the United Nations, These are the voluntary contributions that they choose to make to our work. These voluntary contributions have been substantially reduced in recent years. That is not only the result of the actions of a single member state; it is the accumulation of decisions of a significant number of member states from different regions. The consequence of those decisions has been that we estimate that from 2024 to 2026, overall resources invested in the UN system will reduce by 25%, or $16 billion. To give you some perspective, $16 billion is about 50% of our overall humanitarian expenditure. So we are facing a major restriction in our resource base. The question is, of course, and most of this is due to voluntary contributions being withheld, we have to see what we can do to bring about a reversal of those circumstances. But these problems are quite distinct from moderate to what you referred to in your introduction, the liquidity crisis that faces the United Nations, and this liquidity crisis comes from the behavior of member states in respect of their regular budget contributions, those contributions that they are required to make to the United Nations by the system assessed contributions, which are in place. Now, the problem here is that in recent years we have suffered from a situation in which some member states, one in particular, the largest contributor, has not made— has not honored its obligation to make full and timely payment to the United Nations. And this leads us into the liquidity crisis that we today face, quite separate from the issue of voluntary contributions. Because we were not able to rely upon the payment of these financial contributions, last year the United Nations system spent only 82 cents of every dollar in its agreed budget. [SPEAKING FRENCH] we operated on 82% of capacity. And in our current circumstances, we may have to do something similar this year, depending on the evolution of the situation we are in. And you will see that this poses enormous problems to the, the management of the organization.

Ah!

There is an aggravating circumstance to this situation. When the United Nations does not make the full expenditure of its assessed budget, if we don't spend 100% of our budget, and as I've just said, we spent about 82% of it last year, we are, by virtue of the financial rules prevailing, required to reimburse two member states the unspent margin, so that 18% that we did not spend. And we are required to reimburse those funds even to those countries which did not pay contributions in the first place. This has been described as a financial death vortex. We cannot persist in this rather strange situation. The Secretary-General has recently written to Member States, a) urging them to meet their financial obligations to the organisation, and failing that— but we hope it will not be a case of failing that— to review the financial rules that require us to reimburse funding which has not even been provided. So those are the contours, if you like, of our financial difficulties at this point. I'm going to add a couple of extra points to this. When member states do provide voluntary contributions to the United Nations, it tends to be heavily earmarked funding. That is to say, it is funding provided with a very clear requirement of how and where that money is to be spent. This, by its very nature, leads to a fragmentation of our programme delivery, a difficulty in building up strategic coherence in the work that we do, and a very large amount of the voluntary funding that we receive is provided on a very small scale. 60%—6-0%—of our financial transactions with granting member states is for a value of funding of below $1 million, and that means fragmentation, it means high overheads, it means high transaction costs. Member states have in the past given indications and commitments that they would increase the use of pooled funding mechanisms that would enable us to overcome some of these difficulties, but the reality is that the trend at the moment is in the opposite direction, still towards heavily earmarked voluntary funding. And this in some manner, I think, resonates with the notion of transactional multilateralism, that funding is provided for things which member states have a particular interest in, and not in others. So we need to fix some of these problems. One way of trying to alleviate our circumstances is to explore— and we are doing so— innovative financing streams with philanthropic actors, also with the private sector, which is showing interest in investing in the work that we do. And clearly we have to progress with that, but I think these are complements, not substitutes, for the work that we need to do with our member states to secure, in the areas that I have described to you, full, predictable, and adequate funding for this organization. We are aware that public finances are constrained.

Thank you.

The budget adopted by the General Assembly for the UN Secretariat for this year, 2026, contains a reduction of 9.2% in the level of the budget— our belt is being tightened— and a reduction of some 21% in the posts funded by that Secretariat budget. So those efforts are being made. At the same time as we appeal to member states to help pull us out of this very difficult resource situation that we are in. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Ryder. Transactional multilateralism is not a term that I had previously had to consider, and I, and along with everybody in the room, appreciate your candour and starting us off. Ambassador Thapa, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Thank you, Moderator, honorable parliamentarians, and ESC guide riders, fellow panelists. It is quite happy actually to be here. Yesterday in the opening remarks by the PGA, she highlighted that we are meeting not at the ordinary time, and indeed we are facing the multiple crisis and challenges. You know that today's crisis, from conflicts to inequalities to climate change to debt distress, are more complex, more interconnected, and more transboundary in nature than ever before. The demands on the United Nations continue to grow even as it operates in the context of —great political and financial uncertainty. To address these global challenges, we need a stronger and deeper level of cooperation among the member states. For this, we need a strong and effective UN that delivers in the interest of the people we are supposed to serve. However, we have seen that overall official development assistance and the funding to the United Nations have declined over the years. You can see that the ODA has declined and the funding for the United Nations operational activities for development has also declined substantially. Without sufficient funding, the organizations cannot deliver for the people it serves.

Thank you.

For this, firstly, timely and full payment of assessed contributions is critical. The Secretary-General has repeatedly called on the member states to pay their assessed contributions to the UN regular budget in full and in time. He also warned that the UN could collapse in July if the current liquidity crisis continued. Let us be very clear that under Article 17 of the Charter, member states bear the expenses of the organization as approved by the General Assembly. Second, as highlighted by Guy Ryder, the vast majority of the finance comes through the voluntary contributions, but most of which are earmarked. For this increase Core funding is therefore vital for an effective UN system and to enable the organizations to deliver better outcomes. Rebalancing the funding architectures would enhance efficiency, it would reduce fragmentations, it would enable the United Nations to deliver more integrated and impact-driven support in line with the 2030 Agenda and national development strategies. Third, it is imperative that we reduce costs, streamline our operations, and strengthen overall efficiency. The UN80 Initiative is an important step forward to strengthen the UN system and deliver for those who depend on it. But reform cannot compensate for structural underfunding. Let's be very clear that a more efficient United Nations must also be a sustainably financed United Nations. We must ensure that the three pillars of the United Nations—peace and security, development, and human rights—are all properly funded. Underfunding one inevitably weakens the other pillar. At the same time, strengthening the development pillar is foundational to future-proofing the organizations. Sustainable development addresses the root causes of instability, reduces vulnerability, and reinforces peace and human rights. Investing in development is investing in prevention and investing in peace and security. But member states and the UN Secretariat cannot do this alone. This is where you, the parliamentarians, play an indispensable role. The 2030 Agenda underscores the essential role of national parliaments in ensuring the implementation of the international commitments. Through your budgetary authority, legislative oversight, and public accountability, You hold the power to save the future of multilateralism and to ensure that Charter obligations are upheld. We look to you to— firstly, to encourage the timely and full payment of assessed contributions; secondly, to support a more balanced funding model that reduces over-reliance on voluntary contributions and increases the share of flexible core funding. And third, to ensure that commitments made at the United Nations are reflected in national development strategies and budget allocations. We must also consider additional and innovative financing approaches to complement existing mechanisms and enhance predictability. However, innovation must reinforce, not replace, the foundational system of assessed contributions. Excellencies, the question before us is not whether we can afford to finance the United Nations adequately. The question is whether we can afford not to finance it. A future-proof United Nations, that is the one capable of preventing Conflict, advancing sustainable development, and protecting human rights requires predictable financing and active parliamentary engagement. Let's seize the momentum of the UN Haiti Initiative as well as the GA review of the ECOSOC and High-Level Political Forum to reinforce the foundations of multilateralism. Let us ensure that— Thank you. The UN remains fit for the purpose, not just for today, but for generations to come. I thank you.

And I thank you, Ambassador, especially for the point that financing is essential to future-proofing the United Nations, so pay up, everybody. Ms. Pham, the floor is yours.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Min Thu, and I've had the privilege of being around this institution for over 20 years in various capacities. I first started here after graduate school working in the office of the Secretary General, Kofi Annan. And at the time, this was in 2005, we thought that we were going through an existential crisis. It was 2 years after the war in Iraq, where one permanent member of the Security Council, with a coalition of partners, went into Iraq, and came to the Security Council before that, made the case, but did not receive Security Council authorization. And after that, there were moves by many who said that— the Secretary General, who admitted that that was an intervention that was counter to the charter, that the institution itself lacked legitimacy because it had management, waste, fraud, and abuse, and that fingers started to be pointed at the UN itself for not being sufficiently credible and for not being run well. And almost on a weekly basis, the United Nations was in the headlines on the front page of various newspapers because of what they deemed to be either a crisis of waste, fraud, and abuse, or a crisis of legitimacy because a member of the Security Council could have violated the Charter so dramatically. And at the time, I remember— this was me cutting my teeth in the UN— thinking that we were in an existential crisis, because if in a world of American hegemony, the world's dominant power was not willing to pay the dues of a country, of its country, which was at 22% of the regular budget and 27% of the peacekeeping budget— by the way, that's exactly what it still is today— that it was unsustainable for the UN to continue if the United States was not going to support the UN. And in fact, it would not continue if members of the United States Congress were at the time calling for the Secretary General to resign. [SPEAKING FRENCH] over allegations of waste fraud and abuse, and that the UN itself couldn't figure out when it should go and intervene in a crisis, for instance, in Bosnia or Rwanda or Kosovo or you name it. There are many instances that came up at the time that were seen as being quite critical. And so fast forward to today, 20 years later. 20 years later. And I hear so much talk about this institution being in dramatic crisis, that we have one major member state not paying its dues to the UN in full, on time, and without conditions, and that geopolitically, governments are severed and fraying, that there are violations of the charter, and so we need to now really look deeply as to the whole, from the top to the bottom, how do we make this institution work better, more credible, be more efficient? How do we get governments to pay their dues? Sometimes it feels like we are in cycles of crisis at the UN. So I would just, maybe just to start by saying that this is not the first time that we've been in a situation like this. Obviously, it's different. There are different actors. America's position in the world is different. I am a non-member state, so maybe I can, unlike others in the room, I can sometimes mention certain governments, but just to say that there are also other governments who are not fulfilling their duties in full, on time, and without conditions. And so just to say, this is not the first time, and yet it does feel like we're getting to— we're reaching a pitch point where if we don't do something pretty dramatically to try to assess where we are and how we fix it, we're going to be in quite a bit of a mess.

Thank you.

And so, what does that mean? Many of you, and many diplomats in rooms just like this, the Secretary-General and his senior officials will say, "We have to pay our dues on time, in full, and without conditions." That is absolutely true. We have to fix the way that we structure voluntary funding. We have to fix earmarking of funding, absolutely. But let's just look at a deeper problem. There is a dependency of this institution on a very small number of governments and their domestic decisions, the decisions of their leaders, of their parliaments, of their citizens, as to whether or not they think this institution is worth investing in. And now that the UN is on an annual budget cycle, that crisis comes up every year. And we have, again and again, a crisis of will certain countries pay at all? Will they pay on time and in full and without conditions? And that is just not sustainable. And we can continue to bang our heads on the table— our hands on the table and say, these institutions— these countries have to pay their dues. But let's just imagine, what if they don't? What if there's no fear of losing your vote, Article 19 of the Charter? What if there's no fear of losing your vote in the General Assembly? Because maybe these institutions, for certain governments, don't matter as much anymore. And then what do we do? We could either say, well, that is their problem. They will either decide to pay or not. But then what? And here, my challenge to you— and I can do this as an independent nonprofit, where my— and analyst and longtime observer of the UN now. To say, I think we all have to turn a mirror inward to ourselves and say, in that situation, are we going to be okay with an institution that isn't able to deliver anymore, that isn't able to be the moral voice for the Charter, to be the moral voice for the important principles, fundamental international legal norms, like the prohibition on the use of force, like the sovereign equality of states, territorial integrity of states, human rights, international humanitarian law. If this institution isn't going to defend those things, then who will? And if we're not willing to invest in this institution to be able to do those things, then who will? If we just say, well, certain governments aren't going to pay, we will continue to beg them and ask them and demand that they pay, but if they don't, then what do we do? And I'd suggest that we might need to turn Ameri— inward and say, [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] is the way that this institution is financed, is that sustainable? Or could we take a look at whether the balance of a very small number of governments being responsible for a large portion of the budget, is that okay? And I would posit that it is unhealthy for an institution with the mandate of the United Nations to be fully dependent on a very, very small number of countries.

Thank you.

And that we may, it may come a time now for us to, in the next couple of years, think about how we might rebalance the ability of states to pay and whether this institution is worth it for us to, for those of us who care about it, who care about international cooperation, to decide to invest more and to maybe change the scales of assessments. Now, I realize I'm talking to a room full of parliamentarians, So it's not only your decisions, but it's the decision of the people who elected you into your positions, your citizens, your constituents. How do you make the case to them that your government should increase, potentially increase— that's what I'm positing here— increase its proportion of what it pays into this institution, because it's worth it at the end of the day? It's worth the peace and stability. It's worth—

Thank you.

Us defending the prohibition on the use of force, which is the main purpose of the Charter. How do we do that? And in fact, I'd say, you know, part of it is going into this institution and figuring out meaningful reforms, meaningful changes that really will make it much more fit for purpose, so that we can defend the maintenance of international peace and security. So how do we do that? We have to defend the fundamental principles of the Charter. We cannot go back and try to redo those things. It is absolutely essential. The prohibition on the use of force, governments are violating it, but the vast majority of governments do not violate it. International— the international legal order, because it's violated by a very small handful of governments, still means that it stands. What are we going to do to defend it? How do you go and make that case to your citizens? There is a— An important—— incredibly important reform process right now that's being led by my co-panelist Guy Ryder and the Secretary-General. Are we going to support our governments to really make those reforms meaningful? We're looking at a whole range of issues, and I'd have to say that those— the reforms that have been suggested is a very important start. There's so much more that can happen, and you're about to, within this institution, elect a new Secretary-General. Will that next Secretary-General really prioritize not just reforms, but the political coalition building to make those reforms actually real, working directly with your governments and seeing what is it that your people are demanding of this institution? How do we rally political support behind some really, I think, important changes that are going to be hard? We're going to have to buckle down. We're going to have to prioritize. We can't just—

Thank you.

Decide to reduce the entire institution by 20 or 25%. That's not prioritization. We're going to have to make a choice between one thing and the other thing. What are the really critical things that only this institution can do? Because then I think that means that you can go back to your governments, to your people, and sell a potential increase in the proportion of how much you fund this institution to make it more balanced. I'm being deliberately provocative here, but I thought that that might be helpful to move the conversation forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, thank you for being provocative, and thank you for the clarity of your defense of the principles on which this institution lies. And you've done a very nice job of setting the table for Ms. García García. If you could begin by telling us what the Article 109 Coalition is and its relationship to future-proof— to the future-proofing of the United Nations.

Thank you, Dan. Good afternoon, everyone. Buenas tardes. Bonsoir. Hello?

Hello.

I'm trying to test if I hear you, because I'm going to be asking you some questions. Tough crowd, I see. But good afternoon, everyone. The Coalition Article 109 is a civil society coalition with more than 70 members as of today, and growing. That is mobilizing member states and other stakeholders to consider the option of invoking Article 109 in the UN Charter to reform the charter, to review and eventually reform the UN Charter. And I'll say why we do that. PGI Baerbock, in the opening of these long two days, and very productive two days, said yesterday that the first thing she's asking you to do is to defend the UN Charter. And we think that the best way to defend the UN Charter is to make it relevant and to make it— and to update it, right? I very much agree with USG Ryder. We cannot future-proof the UN because we cannot predict the future. At this rate, I cannot even predict what's going to happen in the next 6 months, right? Right. Right? But far less the future. But I think we can start by present-proofing the UN, which, with the panorama here depicted, it seems is a good task already to take on. So how do we make it future-proof or present-proof? How do we— and I don't think that ensuring financing of the institution is making it present-proof. It's the way to operate. But to make it relevant, first of all, it needs to deliver. The people you represent pays for this operation to move on, as it has been said, and they need to see results. And they may not see— and you know your constituencies better than I do, and so in some countries more than others, perhaps— the amazing results that these institutions, and how many times it saved us from hell, and they need to see it in order to, for then, then claim that we continue supporting this operation. It needs to be connected to their lives. They need to see why it matters for us. It needs to, For it to be future-proof, it needs to be an organization of the future. The charter was drafted in 1945, and thus it reflects the reality and the needs and the challenges of 1945. But 2026 is a very different world, right? And there is challenges that they could not even imagine in 2020— in 1945. There was no climate change, or not as we know it. There was no AI. There were no digital technologies. And those are, by nature, global issues that is not that the Charter fails to address, it's that the Charter was not designed to address. So we need to make it relevant for the present and cover the needs of the present and reflect the power structures and the different roles that countries have. Thank you. And economic situations, et cetera, et cetera, that countries have in 2026 versus 1945. And it also needs to be owned by the members. Member states need to feel that this is a system that reflects their needs and that actually gives them a voice. And here's a question that I have for you. How many of your countries, were part in 1944, 1945 of the designing of the Charter. I have taken a look at the country list in this room and at the list of 51 member states that drafted the Charter, and the vast majority of your countries didn't have a say because some of them actually were still under colonial rule in 1945. So it is a Charter designed by one-fourth of the club that today it represents, or the member states that today operate on it. So, maybe it's a good moment to say, "Let's design it together, let's design it with everybody's interest and viewpoints in mind, and reflect the opinion of 193 member states, and not 51 of them in 1945," and in a very concrete circumstance. So, we need to have a conversation, and Min Thu did a very good reference on what that conversation should be about. Right, but we need to make sure, and there is a lot of conversation going on, on the UN yes and no, and this way and that way, and financing and non-financing, but the conversation for it to be successful and sustainable needs to be inclusive. Everybody has to be at the table, and the table has to be the UN. It cannot be random tables and fora where only 20 or 7 or 77 or 15 or, or middle powers, or small powers, or big powers are part of it. It needs to be a conversation of the whole, because if what we want is a multilateral system, it has to be a multilateral process. And it needs to be structured, not just a wave of political machinations that we are exposed to, especially in the last couple of years. And it needs to be centered— and with a key role for parliaments. We are not talking about one more resolution, one more process, one more declaration. We are talking about defining the new paradigm of international relations and multilateralism embodied, hopefully, in the United Nations and its Charter. So, the parliaments, it should be a conversation where we the peoples take the lead, and you are the representatives of we the peoples. Mm-hmm. So, it has to be a little— bit broader than the rooms that usually treat these topics. We are very lucky, and this is my last point, we're very lucky because the founders of the Charter in 1945 already did an attempt on making the UN future-proof, or if not future-proof, ready to be present-proof in every present coming up since 1945. The founders of the Charter included an article that if you have not read the Charter lately, I recommend to take a look, is Article 109. Article 109 establishes that the Charter should be reviewed in a conference every— they said on the 10th session of the General Assembly, so they thought 10 years were enough for the Charter to be renewed— reviewed. 80 years have passed. So we are a bit late on the mandate that the Charter give us. And that requires two-thirds of the General Assembly and 9 members of the Security Council. That means calling for a conference, or calling to review and take a look at what's working, what's not working, what are we missing, what else can we do to make this institution relevant, and more importantly, its principles be respected, doesn't go through the veto process or doesn't require the vast majority. There can be a two-thirds majority that says, let's look at this and call for a conference, right? President Truman said the Charter should be a living document that adapts to the time. And we have talked a lot about youth these days. And I think— and I don't tend to quote two American presidents in a row, but I'm going to do it this time. President Jefferson— and I very much agree— said, every generation has the right to decide on how they want to manage their relation. And we have violated that right for many generations already, right? So we are very aware of the risks that it entails to review and reopen the Charter, but we are also very aware of the injustices that get perpetuated by not doing that, and very aware of the risks of not doing something very serious about maintaining this institutional life. Or if I can use a way of phrasing it that Ambassador Tapayas used, you know, it's not whether we can afford to finance it, it's not whether we can afford to renew it, it's whether if we can afford not to renew the UN Charter and not to have a serious inclusive conversation where everybody matters, from big to very small, and talk about what do we want to do to, quoting again former Secretary-General, save humanity from hell, which is where, when you read the newspaper, seems we are heading fast in the last year. So, looking forward to— Thank you. Explore the option and really encouraging you to take action for the people you represent, for the "we the peoples," the first three words in the Charter, to make the institution relevant, updated, and powerful again.

Thank you. Thank you very much to all of our presenters. We are going in about 2 minutes going to go out to the delegates. I'm going to be asking the representatives from Chile, Morocco, and Sweden to get ready. I am— there are, again, a number of people who want to speak in this session. It is our final session, so I am going to have to be quite strict on the time. Just before I do that, Chile, Mr. Ryder, reform the Charter, yet let's make sure that it lives up to its principles. Over to you.

Yeah, well, that's an easy question to answer in 2 minutes. I think everybody is aware of the dilemma to which Sophia has pointed. I mean, the question of reform of the Charter tends to gravitate in the first instance almost inevitably around the Security Council, the 5 veto-wielding member states, the fact that the Security Council is a reflection of the world of 1945.— and the fact that the Charter, and let's be honest, is not an expression of sovereign equality between our member states. It is not. There is no argument that it is. And this, of course, raises questions in a world transformed in the ways that Sophia has pointed out, in all sorts of ways, but also in this house from the fact that 51 founding member states has become 193 member states, so there is an obvious prima facie case why Security Council reform should take place and why the Charter might need to be opened for that purpose. The countervailing argument, and I think we should bear it in mind as well, is at a time as perhaps never before in the history of the United Nations when we are struggling to have member states genuinely respect and abide by the principles of the Charter, and the principles in the Charter are absolutely fundamental to us all. The danger of opening the Charter is that things would be lost. Invaluable principles and fundaments would be challenged. And I think that feeling that opening the Charter is opening a Pandora's box with incalculable risks attached to it is a countervailing argument. I've had this conversation with Sophia. I don't think we've reached the end of the road, but this is the nature of the debate before us.

You're absolutely right that that requires more than 2 minutes, and I'm afraid— I'm sorry that we don't have the time, because that really is a fascinating debate, and the point that you just that you just raised. Excuse me. We're going to hear from about 5 countries and then we're going to have brief reaction from our presenters. Chile, the floor is yours. Please, go ahead.

Amazing panel, great presentation. I learned a lot, so thank you very much for your work, down to earth in the beginning and then inspirational with this discussion about the Charter. As a parliamentarian, I understand very well the demand for financing, but also it's very important to be able to better spend the money that you already have. I understand that there's a— the Secretary-General has a UN80 initiative with 3 main work streams. The first one is basically efficiency, doing the same with less. The second one is about mandates, but only mandates to the future, not mandates to the past, as far as I understand. And the third one, which hasn't begun yet, as far as I understand, is restructuring of the agencies and everything that is being done in order to be more efficient, especially in a time where there's a lot of criticism for the lack of results. So my question is, understanding that we have to respect the three pillars, we have to be peace and peace, right? We have to care about development and human rights, but maybe the proposal is a little too conservative, too status quo. The principle of doing the same with less maybe could be changed for something like do less but better with better delivery, or 'less breadth, more depth, and better delivery.' So my question is, in terms of how the UN structures itself, not to depend so much in one or two or three countries, how do you— how we can do it in such a way that we have better results, maybe doing less but better, and not do the same—

Thank you.

—with less?

Excellent question. Excellent question that I'm sure will provoke some response when we come to that. Pakistan, please, 2 minutes maximum.

My name is Senator Saleem. I'm from Pakistan. The scale of unpaid assessed contribution is deeply concerning. As of 2025, total unpaid assessments stand at approximately 1.6 billion. With significant portions owed for both 2024 and '25 budgets, limiting the UN's liquidity and forcing budget crisis. Only 145 of 193 member states had paid their 2025 assessed contributions in full, with weeks remaining in the year demonstrating chronic delays in mandatory budget payments.

Thank you.

As of early 2026, just 41 members states had paid the regular budget assessments on time, revealing persistent non-compliance with payments deadlines. The arrears have driven the Secretary-General to implement budget cuts and workforce reductions, which we have seen during this visit across the UN system, affecting core operations and peacekeeping missions. Furthermore, most UN agencies rely heavily on volunteer contributions, which have declined sharply in recent years. For instance, major donors reduced humanitarian funding from $14.1 billion in 2024 to $3.38 billion in 2025. To address this financing shortfall, we urgently need full-time payments of assessed contributions by all member states in accordance with the UN Charter; strengthened mechanism for transparency and parliamentary oversight to hold governments accountable for their dues; a shift toward core unearmarked funding to ensure balanced support for peace, development, and humanitarian mandates.

Thank you.

Pakistan continues to pay its assessed contribution in full. Thank you. And I support Sophia's view. Article 109 should be invoked and you should call a meeting of the member states to address this issue.

Thank you. That's— there's one. Sweden, please.

Ladies and gentlemen, First of all, thank you to the distinguished panel for their intervention and introduction. Sweden is a great supporter of UN. We believe in the work done by UN. And let me say that we have also had a Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjöld, who did a lot in support of UN and the UN Charter. Sweden is among one of the —top 10 donor if we look at per capita. But let me by this say that it's also very important that UN deliver, and here I would like to refer to the UN80, making UN fit for purpose, initiative by Secretary-General. I think this is really, really important.— all organizations, just as we do as MPs in our national countries, need to look over the organization, that it's fit, look over the finance. And I think today would be a great opportunity if you could say something about where is the UN Haiti today. The program was adopted in September 2025. 2005, and it's not so long time ago, but in the beginning, and we all know when it's a new programme, the start is very important. So please, tell us something about this, and I ask about it because UN and multilateralism are very important, and we who are here in this room, we believe in the work of UN. Thank you.

And I thank you very much. We're going to hear from two more delegates before I turn it back over to our representatives, Qatar and France, and then we will come back and get some reaction. Qatar, the floor is yours, please.

The UN future is dependent on its ability to access balanced and predictable resources. Parliaments can guarantee these resources through legislation, oversight, the adoption of national budgets. It is important to note that there are UN programs and funds that rely in their funding on the support and the contributions— voluntary contributions of countries through financial resources or executive partnerships, including UNDP. Gulf countries are among the most prominent supporters of UNDP, as well as to UNICEF that relies in its financing on the support of governments as— well as individuals. Qatar is present actively in most of U.N. activities. Since our joining of the organization, we contributed effectively to achieve its objectives in safeguarding international peace and security and support development across the world. Qatar is also engaged in bilateral and multilateral relations with the U.N. organizations and specialized agencies. On the sidelines— At the close of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly in last September, the Qatar Fund for Development renewed our commitment to multilateralism and international collaboration. We announced the signing of 13 new agreements with UN agencies, international financial institutions, and humanitarian organizations for a total of over $133 million. These commitments and contributions will benefit more than 8.3 million people around the world to support collective progress in areas of health, education, youth empowerment, and food security. I have 3 questions to you. Do you expect that there will be more countries that would have not have paid their assessed contributions as a result of the increasing number of conflicts and wars? Are there— the second question— are there procedures by the UN regarding those countries who fail to make their assessed contributions? The third question: since the financial crises are recurrent, what is the lessons learned— what are the lessons learned that we can learn from the past and from now?

We will hear from the representative from France and then I will ask Ms. Pham and Ambassador Tapa to respond and then we will go back to the delegates. France, please.

Oui, yes.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, I wish to begin by using the shock language that the SG used in a letter addressed to all UN member states in January. He talked about a financial collapse, an imminent financial collapse. Indeed, the reason for that was the decision by some countries to not honor their assessed contributions, which finance a significant part of the regular budget. The unilateral decision taken by the largest contributor to refuse to issue a number of assessed contributions and to withdraw financing from certain UN agencies is putting the organization in a very grave situation. And several other countries are concerned and have engaged in the same behavior. The IPU met in Geneva 2025 to celebrate one of its major anniversaries, and we heard representatives of UN agencies in Geneva. These included the World Food Programme and the High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross. All of these representatives spoke because this turbulence doesn't only concern the UN and its agencies. The representatives of those organizations expressed their concern given the rising tide of conflict throughout the world. More than 130 conflicts are currently raging globally, and that's the highest level reached since 1993. What did they say to us? The WFP said that they have lost 40% of their income between 2024 and 2025. The ICRC is preparing a social and their personnel could be stripped and affected. And if we go beyond Geneva, budgetary cuts to the tune of 20 to 30% have been noted, and that is already having effects or will have effects in terms of delocalization and redundancies. This situation is unacceptable, and the UN Haiti Initiative that was presented as a response to the financial crisis sparked by the U.S. withdrawal is necessary. Thank you.

Ms. Pham, lots of different points, some questions. How would you— what would you like to respond to and how would you like to do so?

Thanks so much for this. Maybe just as a start, I have been around this institution for a while. These problems that you are all raising, that Guy Ryder and his Valiant team have been working on are perennial problems. We really need to take an assessment of what our role is in helping to address those problems. That it's not just something that this system without an identity, without names of specific individuals, it's not just a general problem. It's something that each of us have to be, have to be working on. And to that, let me just go to this point about, um, about the Charter, because I think it is— and Sophia and her colleagues are incredibly charismatic, and I love the energy around it. I would encourage you to think there— to just assess a little bit here, because I recognize the impulse. Right now, the world is in chaos. We are trying to find answers. We would love to find a silver bullet to solve all of our problems that is inspired that is easy and that is just a one-shot deal. Let's just have a conference. There are conferences that take place in this institution all the time. Some of them, like the one that Guy Ryder led last year, are really significant and they are years in the making, the Summit of the Future. That was a years-long process of trying to think, what are the key problems that we want to solve? What kind of UN do we want to solve it?— and that process did give us some answers. Now, I asked my colleagues who work on the Charter reform, "What do you want the UN to look like at the end of it?" and I have not gotten any clear answers. If it's Security Council reform, let's work on Security Council reform, and there are some really important moves to do that. Figure out what it is— there's a difference between tactics, strategies, and outcomes. If the outcome that you want is a review process, know what you want on the other end of that review process, because you might not get what you want. There are some countries that in the last few years went through, for instance, a referendum, thinking that they knew what would come out of the other end of the referendum, thinking that they had a strategy already. And what happened? They said, "Well, we just want to give voice to the people to defend this outcome." And that's not what they got. They got the exact opposite. And now they have to live with those consequences. I don't think that you all who defend the UN want to get there unless you first— I'm not saying never having a charter review, but first figure out what it is that you want from the UN. Let's work towards that. We want a UN that really, first of all, maybe save us from hell, for sure. What is the bare minimum that we need this institution to do? We need it to prevent catastrophic crises, nuclear war, bio and pandemic risks, climate change risks, AI, catastrophic AI, and conflict. There are some really important things— extreme poverty, the ability of governments not to be able to pay for their own citizens to get healthcare and to be fed. There are some really important problems. Figure out what you want first and then build the political coalitions behind those answers, and then at the end of it, you have the 5 answers or the 10 answers you want, then you have a review conference. Thank you. But if you start with a conference, be careful what you wish for. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Ambassador Tapan.

Thank you. First of all, I really appreciate all the parliamentarians for your strong commitment to the stronger multilateralism and then strong United Nations which can deliver really better outcomes. But as you know that we already highlighted that there is a need, yes, UNAID initiative is there, so Guy Ryder will contribute, I'm sure, in his turn. And then there is the need to cost the cost, streamline the mandate, and gain the efficiency in order to deliver better again and do more with less. But what I feel is that, in my presentation as well, I tell that there is a— Yes. the strong demand in the multilateral cooperation and even in the UN. Sophia already highlighted that in 1945 when we had the Charter, that time there was very less problems with what we are facing right now on the transboundary— AI, digital, climate change, inequalities. And I always say that in terms of development, it is the demographic dividends. There are a number of people, up to 70-75% of the young people in the developing country, in least developed, in Africa, but their aspirations is huge, but in the national governments, also international system has not been able to deliver better. In that sense, there is a huge demand, and so we have to do more and with less and even deliver better. This is a challenge for now. For this, I think, again, we come to the same point that we have to strongly finance the United Nations system so that we can deliver the developments and to those people which we are supposed to solve. And about the— I think the question from Sweden about the UN Haiti initiatives and the current state, I think Aida will talk about that. The Qatar— from the parliamentarian from Qatar, I know— yes, there are a number of countries are facing a lot of problems, including financial, I think the finance, and they are facing the debt problems, but still, and then as I said that this is the mandate and that this is the charter provisions, and then we have to pay to these institutions in order to deliver in the interest of all, in the development for the peace and security, for the human dignity, and thank you so much again, you know, for—

Thank you. I'm going to— I know that there are many comments that our panellists want to say. I have about 8 or 9 countries that I want to be able to get to. I'm afraid I have to close the list now because I don't want to leave everybody— anybody off of the list for our last session of the day. So I'm going to be calling on Romania, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico, and Nigeria, and then we will come back and we will ask Mr. Ryder and Ms. Garcia-Garcia to comment briefly, and then we will have the last comments, questions from the audience. So Romania, maximum, maximum 2 minutes, please.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much for this opportunity. Someone smarter than I said in— when it was the United Nations was created that there was one very important ingredient which means to the League of Nations, and that was trust— trust of the people and trust of the world in an international organization to deliver. So I believe today we can consider that trust is the most valuable currency of multilateralism and the most important resource at the time when global challenges are increasing. the ability of the United Nations to respond effectively is being questioned by some parts of the world. Rebuilding trust in the multilateral system therefore requires not only institutional reform, but renewed political ownership, transparency and engagement with those we represent. The UN Haiti Initiative represents a unique opportunity to reform and renew the Organization by enhancing its resilience, improving its efficiency and strengthening its capacity to respond fast to current and emerging challenges. At the same time, the Pact for the Future provides a roadmap for restoring the full operability of the UN-led multilateral system. The accent on strengthening partnerships with parliaments and civil society reflects a fundamental truth: the United Nations cannot deliver without— and that is the active engagement of democratic institutions at national level in the UN reform. As members of parliaments, we are directly engaged in advancing all three inseparable pillars of the United Nations, namely peace and security, human rights, and sustainable development. Progress in one cannot be sustained without the progress of the others.

Thank you, but—

Romania is committed— and I close immediately— Romania is committed to parliamentary support and cooperation for this vital UN reform and its successful implementation and to broaden public ownership of all reform efforts. Thank you.

Thank you, Romania. Bolivia, the floor is yours.

Muy buenas tardes. A very good afternoon to everyone here with us today. Greetings to you from Bolivia. Bolivia is of the view that parliaments can guarantee predictability equitable resources through the timely adoption and approval of contributions. That should be followed up by their fulfillment of financial obligations and public debate on priorities within the U.N. system. Bolivia supports exploring innovative and solidarity-based financing sources based on the principle of common response— common but differentiated responsibilities, including mechanisms tied to global public goods and climate justice. This is, without a doubt, vital, and it's vital to ensure equitable allocation of resources across the peace, security, development, and human rights pillars of the UN work. We must avoid piecemeal approaches and strengthen an integrated vision of the UN's mandate. Thank you.

We thank you very much. We are going to hear from Peru, followed by Mexico and Nigeria, at which point I will ask Ms. Garcia and Mr. Ryder to respond. Peru, please.

Señor Presidente, Chair, distinguished colleagues, my name is Ernesto Gustamante. I am a representative of Peru's Parliament. Financial sustainability at the United Nations is not an abstract matter. It ultimately depends on decisions that are taken in our own parliaments. International commitments that are made when we talk about budgetary allocations internationally affect everyone. So parliaments are key decision-making actors and we are guarantors that ensure that the UN has predictable resources at its disposal. It is really woefully unfortunate that certain powerful countries, powerful geopolitically and militarily influential countries have decided to close the tap and not to pay the contributions incumbent upon them to pay as a member state of the United Nations. This affects many countries, particularly countries in Latin America, because where the health sector is concerned, for example, the Pan American Health Office that depends on the United Nations system has had to recently fire 200 members of staff from the healthcare sphere, and that has affected vaccine programs and programs— cancer treatment programs funded by our rotating trust fund. This is very serious because there are financial calamities and poverty, of course, but that's not the situation for these— this country or these countries that have economic power and have nevertheless decided not to pay the UN and wish to use use their geopolitical and military clout to wield influence over the multilateral system in a negative way. So we need to find alternative funding— finances— financing. We need to have philanthropy and the private sector that can complement what we do, but we need to be key actors and have strict safeguards. There needs to be avoidance of conflicts of interest and transparency where the UN is concerned. Thank you.

Mexico, please. The delegate from Mexico. Here.

Go ahead, please.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you, Guy Ryder. It's very important that you are here to celebrate. For me, it's important to say that in this reform, we will really need to modernize United Nations. They cannot exist countries of first level or second level or third level, so I think it's important to eliminate the veto in the next reform. There are not powerful countries and less powerful countries and less powerful countries. We need to all— we are equal, and if we are talking about equality, They cannot be countries that can veto in the United Nations. Another thing I would like to extend is I have been here in IPU, I think, 10 years as a parliamentarian activist in IPU. In any of our assemblies, the Secretary General of the United Nations has assisted to our assembly. We are the biggest organization of parliamentarians all around the world. We are 46,000 members of parliament. Also, as president of women of IPU, I have sent a lot of letters to the person that is in charge of women from the UN, and she has never attended any meeting. So we need to modernize, we need to transform the United Nations, and if we are talking about equality, Every country has to be equal and no more veto. Thank you so much.

Thank you. I think your message was well received. We'll hear from Nigeria and then I will ask first for response from Ms. García García. Nigeria, please.

Thank you very much. Greetings from Federal Republic of Nigeria. My name is Senator Jimoh Ibrahim. The simple question I want to say is about the demand of Africa asking for permanent seats in the Security Council of the United Nations. Now, this elicits support and increases desire for funding. We've been here for several years now. We represent 25% of the global population, the future of developments in Africa. We are becoming every year— we are 54 countries, we are members of this United Nations, but we don't have a permanent seat. In the UN, and this really is a big issue of concern to us. We will continue to pay our dues, no doubt, to help the funding system, but it's not very encouraging paying every year for over 30 years and you can't have just one permanent seat in the Security Council— just one for the entire continent, not for one country. I think it's very important. that will look at this. The last contribution I want to make is that United Nations is actually— survives actually on the observation of the fundamental rules of the principles upon which it was founded. Article 2(4), 2(4), non-use of force by member nation; Article 2(7), 2(7), non-intervention in domestic affairs of another nation— these articles are fundamental edifice upon which the structure of the UN is based. How— what is inter-parliamentary doing in ensuring— even if we cannot carry— we can't carry the guns, but we just have to ensure that by speaking, by our voice, we lend our voice to the enforcement of Article— or observation that Article 2(4) 2(4) and Article 2(7) 2(7) of the United Nations Charter are not in conformity with contemporary politics. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Garcia-Garcia, you hear a lot of passion in the room about the desire for reform and, frankly, some of the unfairness of the initial setup of the United Nations. However, Ms. Pham points out the— or Mr. Ryder also points out the Pandora's box, the danger of the Pandora's box, If you would respond to that and to some of what you've heard in the room.

Mm-hmm. I'm gonna start with— it's one of the questions we face the most, what we have to lose, and Pandora's box. In our view, Pandora's box is open, and your constituencies feel it every day. It's easy to forget the consequences on your everyday life, on your skin, of the failures of the EU. United Nations, right? It is very easy as well to see, and many in this room have lived it, has lived experience, the successes of the United Nations. But when we say, what do we have to lose, I would ask, who has something to lose by reforming the United Nations? Those that have power lose to fear it. Those that are not given power by the United Nations don't have so much fear to lose it. Those that have felt firsthand in their countries how the United Nations has failed them, or some of the member states have failed them, you know, don't have so much problem in trying to make it better. Because for them, it's difficult that it gets worse, because they know what international law violations mean. So it's a matter of a little bit of who you ask. Then I have to say— Thank you. To put a note of realism in all this, we are not calling for a charter review now, today, March 2026. We are very aware of the risks, I said it before, of the geopolitical situation. But we are calling, and this is why I'm talking precisely to you, because it's you who should develop that vision, the what do we want to get, to start getting ready to have a position, to have your alliances, to have the dialogue, to explore how to get it done, so when that window of opportunity opens, we are ready. And finally, I would appeal, you know, it's about— it's very interesting to see how most of us are trained to think of what do we have to lose, especially in circles like this one and in diplomatic circles. When I ask about UN reform to students around the world, and we engage with student chapters and Model United Nations and young people all over, The first question is not, what do I have to lose? It's, what do I have to win? So it's a matter of what lens do you see it from. I want to do one more point on Pakistan, and I close with this. They just left, but thanks. Unfortunately, they said we should call for a conference for 109. As a civil society coalition, we can't do that. If we could, we would have done it already, long ago, probably. Yeah. But you can do that, right? And what I encourage you to do, and this is my final message, is precisely get together, have a conversation in your parliament, put a motion or whatever mechanisms you have to develop that vision that Mintu is asking us to have. I don't think it should be our coalition that has the vision on how the world should look like. In the end, we are a bunch of, I don't know, intellectuals and politically connected people. Yes. —those visions shouldn't be developed by us, it should be developed by your people. Start discussing it, get ready, hear what your people want from the United Nations, guess what will motivate them to pay for the United Nations—two birds with one stone—and then, of course, we can call for the Charter review when the moment is right, which is hopefully soon.

Thank you. Equal time to you, Mr. Ryder, and then I know, Ms. Pham, you wanted to have you wanted to respond.

Let me just say something in response to what Sophia has just said. I mean, we could have this discussion at great length about opening the Charter, and there are good arguments for and there are good arguments against. I do think we have something to lose. I don't think the argument that we have nothing to lose is a good argument. The Charter The Charter, whatever its failings, whatever its limitations, notwithstanding the fact that the Charter is routinely violated today, is a most valuable asset to the international community. It has served the international community extraordinarily well for 80 years, so let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater by believing this is something we can afford to lose. We can't. Now, I've been asked to say something about UN80. I never come to a meeting and don't say quite a lot about UN80, so here goes. The UN80 process— and I'll try and be very, very telegraphic in this, Moderator— as has been said by the parliamentarian from Sweden, launched in March of last year, we're working on efficiencies, improvements in the way that we work in the UN. That's resulted in a a major budget reduction this year through efficiencies. We are taking on the obligations and disciplines that you require of your governments at home, that is to work to maximum efficiency. I'm reluctant to say to do more with less because we always want to get more. I say to do the maximum with the resources that you put at our disposal, and by doing the maximum and demonstrating our efficiency, efficiencies to encourage you to invest more. That's an ongoing process of efficiencies. We also have what is somewhat mysteriously called a mandate implementation review. What does that mean? It means we're taking a look at the resolutions, decisions that have been taken over the last 80 years— there are some 40,000 of them— and seeing what they add up to. We— cite— this is somewhat alarming— we make citations of 4,000 of those mandates in our budget document for 2025. This is evidence of duplication in the system, evidence of confusion in the system. We need to put order in the way that our mandates are created, implemented, and eventually reviewed and retired.. It is really a way of improving the everyday work of this House. And if you talk to any of the PRs here, and I speak under the authority of my neighbour, they will say they are inundated with reports, meetings, obligations. It is unmanageable and we have to do better. And then there is Workstream 3, to which the delegate from Sweden referred. It has started, it's not just getting started, it's been going for some time. This is about structural change and programme realignment in the system. So we are looking at the possibility of bringing together, merging certain entities and structures in the UN system. This is an extraordinarily complex and diffuse system. There are some 140 UN entities in the system, by the most liberal count,, as it were. We need to make sure that we can— we're not duplicating, fragmenting our efforts in an undue way, so we're looking at ways of doing that. We're also looking at our country presence, our regional presence, where impact to the UN is most basically felt. We're looking at the way we use technology, we're looking at the way we collect and share data. This would be a major upgrade of the UN if we can deliver in in all of these areas. So in the course of the coming year, we hope to be bringing decisions to the General Assembly where that is required and producing results which I think parliamentarians would find as a convincing demonstration not only of the determination but of the capacity of the United Nations to make itself fit for purpose, to—

Thank you.,

to the extent it is a possible proposition, future-proof itself, and we need your support for all of that.

Thank you. Ms. Pham, very briefly.

I just want to address this. It seems that we're talking about— we're sort of talking— there's a contradiction here. We all are here to try to defend the UN. We're here because we believe in the system and we actually think it's made the world better in the last 80 years. Not had major world war in 80 years. Maybe you can say February 24th, 2022, when one country invaded another, might have been the start of World War III, but otherwise, you know, we've kind of had— we've had, in the course of human history, we've never had a period of time where over 80 years, that length of a time span, where we haven't had a major international conflict.

Mm-hmm.

When you look at development, the definition of development now is not just How do we prevent people from dying? The SDGs and the gender equality, looking at environmental issues, we have a much more expansive view about what human dignity is about. You just can go on down the list. And so I don't buy this argument that you have not been served by this institution. Don't then fall— there are populist nationalists in every country and they are winning. They're winning elections, not just last year or the year before. Just this month, they are winning elections. And they are making the case that this institution has not proven itself, so we should get rid of it. Please do not go and join that side by doing this.

Thank you.

Let me just— so this institution has served you. So let's— maybe one point of fact. I was just speaking to a Singaporean colleague yesterday. And if you look at the facts, if you look at Southeast Asia— I am Vietnamese, I came to this country as a refugee— you look at developing countries all over the world, the amount of prosperity and economic growth in the poorest countries in the world, the countries that have decolonized— we're in the Trusteeship Council— and have really reached heights that I don't think anybody would have imagined 50 years ago, it's on account of international cooperation. Please do not throw that out. There are so many significant— if you look at the facts now, there are countries in the West that wrote the Charter that are decreasing. So there is more egalitarianism across the world in terms of prosperity. There's a reason for that. It's because institutions like this one have defended the rights of— even if you weren't there writing the Charter— have enabled the growth and the prosperity that we've seen.

Thank you.

Let's build on that. Mark Carney in Davos said, "Let's build what we believe in." That is really our task here. The words on the piece of paper of the Charter, let's defend those things because there are some really important parts of that. How do we make this place live by its egalitarian principles, not just have it words on paper?

Thank you for name-checking the Prime Minister of Canada. We are going to do our famous lightning round now. We are going to hear from 4 countries: Belgium, Zambia, Ecuador, Morocco, 1 minute each, and then I am going to give each of the panellists here 30 seconds for their final comments, for their most important comments to you. Belgium, please, 1 minute.

Reform the Charter. It's like you said, Mr. Reiter, maybe it's opening the box of Pandora. Yes, the world has changed. Yes, we have all the challenges. But I'm afraid if we are talking about this, that we will end up with a lot of words, a lot of dialogue, we take a lot of time, but at the end, I don't see the answer on the question, where do we get the money? And so for me, I think, and I never heard except from Chile, What do we have to do to have the money? Why are we not focusing more? 40,000 mandates at the moment. Why not focus so that we can do with it more efficient, more transversal, that we are not talking about cooperation and cooperation and cooperation, but it has to be more focused so that we can have the same with less.

Thank you. I think we did hear from Mr. Ryder that we are focusing the 40,000 as part of the UN80 reform initiative. Zambia, one minute to you, please.

Thank you very much. The future of the United Nations is indeed under threat due to, among other things, inadequate funding. The need for adequate funding and future-proofing the UN therefore cannot be overemphasized. As a member state of the UN, Zambia, like many other member states, Zambia funds the United Nations primarily through mandatory assessed contributions to the UN's regular budget based on its economic capacity. It is worth noting that the Zambia National Assembly does not have a standalone for financing and future-proofing the United Nations. However, through parliamentary representation, our parliament actively engages in the UN financing for development, institutional reform discussions, and broader multilateral finance dialogues that are part of the global effort to ensure that the UN overcomes future challenges. We are glad to note that the proposed reforms of the UN take cognizance of the fact that the UN's financial challenges require renewed political commitment from member states, active engagement by national parliaments, and openness to innovative and yet principled financing solutions.

Thank you very much.

With these few words, we thank you, Mr. Mudareta.

Thank you. I appreciate your your comments. Ecuador, please, 60 seconds.

Muy buenas— a very good afternoon, very good greetings. I am Viola Samartín from Ecuador. Before we conclude this important conference, I'd like to emphasize something very important that was broached this morning, and that is political violence, because these are acts that not only affect the person involved, rather they affect their families, institutions, and they are an affront to democracy and also to us women. These acts, these harmful acts have become a barrier for access that hinders us from becoming a part of these leadership spaces and these spaces for representation and decision-making. In my province, in the last elections, of 14 candidates, I was the only one that was attacked on social media and verbally abused in the street. In these fora where we share ideas, comrades. It's important that we are motivated to develop bodies of legislation against political violence to guarantee our physical and emotional safety and that of those who are engaged in political office. We must also strengthen cooperation between nations. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Final 60 seconds to the delegate from Morocco, and then we will begin in reverse order that you were introduced, so we will start with you, Ms. Garcia Garcia and Morocco, final comments for the day, please.

Thank you. See, that's what's said. Ladies and gentlemen, the Kingdom of Morocco, out of loyalty to its firm commitment to the United Nations and based on the guidance of His Majesty the King, believes that financing is not just a calculation issue but It's necessary for the success of the organization. Without predictable financing, our international decisions remain delayed aspirations unable to address the crises. Our vision to guarantee a safe financial future is based on three pillars. One, the critical role of parliaments. Yes. Financing innovation. Third, financial balance between the three pillars of the United Nations. Ladies and gentlemen, securing the future of the UN begins by securing its resources, and the Kingdom of Morocco calls today to charting and drafting a new financial charter. We want a strong and stable and effective organization capable of converting our commitments to achievements. Thank you.

Final comments from our presenters, beginning with you, Ms. García García.

The UN has served people, that's for sure. The UN does a lot of good things, that's for sure. The UN can do better. And the role of parliaments is to raise the ambition for their citizens. Have a conversation. All I ask is, or we ask is, have a conversation with your constituencies, have a conversation in parliament, see what they want, and some of the things that they need in 2026 may need to be reflected, maybe need to be done in a global conversation. That global conversation is hopefully in the United Nations, and that may require some updates and revitalization of the UN Charter. So, looking forward to support those conversations at the national level with your constituencies of what can the UN do even more for them.

Thank you, and thank you for provoking some very interesting conversations here for our final session of the day. Ms. Pham, your final comments.

I just want to thank my colleague from Zambia because the government of Zambia and its support, along with the leadership of Ambassador Thapa of Nepal, Mexico, and Norway on the Financing for Development negotiations and getting that outcome was tremendously important, so I just wanted to recognize that. Thank you very much. My colleague from Belgium, who said, "Why aren't we focusing more?" I came into this room thinking we were going to talk about the really critical issue of financing the UN, and instead we've mostly talked about the Charter. I think at some point, the credibility of the UN, yes, we have to talk about it, but some of these things, pie in the sky, in that we're not really thinking through strategy and thinking clearly, is a bit of a distraction from the really important critical issues that you all have to deal with every day. Your parliaments, your citizens are asking you, "Is our money being spent well? Is this institution worth investing in, and how do we actually change it? What are the real things that need to happen? What are the real changes, both ambitious and not?" Meaning, some of it is just quiet work, like the work that Guy Ryder does, that is absolutely critical to making sure that this world is, in the end, a better place. Let's focus on those things, and financing, if you're not paying for it, if you're not really understanding where the money is and whether it has an impact, I think we're doing a disservice to our citizens. Thank you.

And remember the distinction between tactics, strategy, and outcomes, and think about your outcomes. Ambassador Tappa, final thoughts.

Thank you, thank you. Again, you know, we all realize that the United Nations has remained the beacon of hope, beacon of— for the peace, for the development, for the human dignity, for the international rule of law over the years. Deep down, I feel that there were— the colleagues already told that multilateral has delivered in the interest of many countries, many people, segment of the society, whether you talk about the health, education, women empowerment, women's goals, or vaccinations of millions of children. But sometimes I feel that we have failed to communicate and to make the people realize. For that, I think the parliamentarians also have the role to play for that. And thirdly, multilateral cooperation remains the most effective means of addressing the global challenges we are facing. Fourth, if there is a trust deficit, we are losing the trust in the multilateral systems. Alternative is to have the better cooperation between and among the countries and that the cooperation that delivers better, that delivers, that put the people first and that delivers in the interest of all the people including LDC, LLTC, Africa, many countries. Finally, on the one hand, we have the growing demands on the multilateral systems, including the United Nations, and on the other hand, we talk about the fragile financing systems we are facing, and these heights pose the strategic risk. For that, again, the parliaments, and have the role to play, very indispensable role to play in ensuring predictable, adequate, and balanced UN financing. Thank you so much again.

Thank you, Ambassador. And final word for this last session, Mr. Ryder.

Thank you very much. Two points, really. I agree this has been a very interesting and wide-ranging conversation, but I want to ensure the parliamentarian from Belgium, we are laser-focused in the Secretariat, in UNAT, on resource issues, on ensuring that we deliver as effective as we possibly can through the resources entrusted to us. This is absolutely top priority. So we need to deal with the resource issues, and we're We're trying to do that. The other commodity that we need to focus on is— and it's been said by different delegates— Romania, trust and confidence, and this in two respects. I think we need a collective restoration of confidence in the efficacy of multilateral action, which has fallen short for different reasons in different areas, but we also need a restoration of trust— not of member states in the United Nations, but in member states in each other, and that's where perhaps the biggest division and deficit exists today. I think all these things are mutually reinforcing or mutually corrosive. We have to go into a mutually reinforcing spiral.

Please join me in thanking our guests for a fascinating, fascinating conversation. I appreciate it. As we say goodbye to these guests, please don't leave your seats. We have one— we are 10 minutes away from the close. I ask that you just remain seated while we say goodbye to our guests and as I get ready to call on Dr. Axson to say a few words.

Yes?

Yes. Okay.

Thank you so much.

Dr. Axton and company, my mistake.

Why did you have to tell me this?

I will turn the— I will turn the microphone over to the permanent representative, Ms. Patti Torsney.

Thank you.

We are going to thank everybody for Dan's contribution today. Thank you, Dan.

And thank you all.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Quickly, I will turn over to the President and then we'll hear from the Secretary-General.

Colleagues, the closing remarks will be given by the Secretary-General, but I wanted to say a word about him before he starts speaking. One thing is, because we are running out of time, so I'll say just a few words. Please help us as the family of IPU to thank the Secretary-General of IPU because this is going to be his last to attend as Secretary-General of IPU and— And he has been with IPU for a very long time, 33 years to be precise, and he has been Secretary-General for 12 years, so he has worked tirelessly. Even this meeting, when we talk about the success successes of this meeting, credit goes to him. Mr. Secretary-General, thank you so much for your good service to IPU and, of course, for ensuring that the parliamentary hearing takes place every year. Thank you so much. Lastly, about him, on Monday he will be celebrating his birthday, so please help me wish him happy birthday in advance. Thank you so much. Secretary-General, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Dear Giulia, thank you. I feel very humbled by the comments that you have just made about me, and I can assure you that I will continue to do my work as I should for the remaining time of my term as Secretary-General. And I am, as you have said, very thrilled that I am addressing you here today for the last time as Secretary-General of the IPU. It gives me great pleasure then— I have sat through the discussions here side by side with Madam President, and I'm sure, Madam President, you will agree with me that the event has been a wonderful one. This annual hearing has been very refreshing. We have felt a lot of energy in this room, and what I have really appreciated has been the candor with which you have expressed yourselves on the issues that were on the agenda of the annual hearing. I was commenting yesterday that this room may be asking questions as to what type of creatures were in this room during these past two days, because the way you have expressed yourselves is not how diplomats normally express themselves in these precincts. You have been the people's representatives and I believe you have said it as it is. You have been very candid about your assessment of the current situation in the world and how this can be fixed. I don't want to go into the details of the discussions that you have had here because we are going to be producing a full report, which will be available in the next 2-3 weeks. But let me just take some moments of your time to identify a number of takeaways as I saw it during the deliberations here. I think that we had a very positive message yesterday from the President of the General Assembly, and the IPU President. They both reaffirmed the importance of multilateralism and the institution that embodies multilateralism, that is the United Nations. The message that I think we should be taking away from our session is one of hope. It is one of faith, hope that not all is lost in spite of the daunting challenges facing the international community, including the United Nations, faith in multilateralism as a mechanism for helping fix those problems that we have identified over these days, including the United Nations. I remember what The President of General Assembly said yesterday, and Guy Ryder said it, we are not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The United Nations is not only about discussing crisis or trying to fix crisis, it is also projecting into the future to help stem some crisis that may arise, and that is what we had during the session that took place a moment ago here. So by and large, I understand that we agree that the United Nations deserves the support of parliaments, particularly at this time of crisis. Despite the multiple challenges that the world is facing today, there is, as I said, hope that we can address these challenges collectively. We have reaffirmed our faith in the United Nations as the foremost institution of multilateralism. The United Nations may be outmanoeuvred by a few powerful nations, but the rest of the world can use the UN to speak up in defense of the rule of law and of fundamental values this organization represents. I believe that a lot of you, including the representative of the Secretary-General, have made the point that the UN Charter has been consistently violated in recent times. It is time that the world stands up in defense of the Charter, even if it is imperfect and is not suited to the realities of today. That said, parliaments need to be included increasingly in relevant processes— that is the message I had here— and must demand their governments to provide more information about the processes that are ongoing at the United Nations. And the Pact for the Future makes it very clear. States the commitment of member states to deepen the role of parliaments at the United Nations, and we must all work together as a parliamentary community to make sure that this commitment is realized to the fullest extent possible. I also, I believe, heard that the United Nations— while the United Nations and the idea of multilateralism embodies is one that we need to support and put our faith in. We agree that its restructuring, its reform is a prerequisite. We need to reform the United Nations system. But we must be careful, though, not to boil this down to a money question, like we had earlier in the session that has just been concluded. It's not just about money. That would be too reductive, especially so as the UN budget of $67 billion is a pittance, pittance, if you compare this with global military expenditure and global GDP. So, as many of you have stressed over the past two days, and especially during this last session that has just been concluded, the bigger question we need to pay attention to is: how can the United Nations deliver better by doing things differently? The UN80 Initiative goes very much in that direction and deserves our unconditional support. The IPU, for its part, is keeping a close watch on UN reforms, particularly through its Standing Committee on UN Affairs. Among other things, this committee is working on a survey of MPs' views on the UN budget, the results of which will be released at the 152nd Assembly of the IPU in April in Istanbul. Also reflecting the debate we have just had, the Committee is providing a space for discussion on the review of the UN Charter. As a reminder, any such review, including changes to the Security Council, will need parliamentary ratification in most countries. I believe that it has been made abundantly clear here that the United Nations is more necessary than ever today as the world is facing a host of new challenges, new issues such as artificial intelligence, but not only that. What about the growing use of outer space for military purpose? The Pact for the Future provides a clear roadmap to help the United Nations and the international community manage long-standing issues as well as emerging ones. The Pact is our most important reference point going forward, and it is critical that Parliament takes stock of its many commitments together with the governments. As you return home, do ask your governments for a briefing on the Pact, and inquire about its implementation. Yesterday, I did indicate to you that we had agreed with the leadership of the United Nations to produce material that would help popularize the pact with the parliamentary community in the form of handbooks and toolkits, which we will be working on. Indeed, we should remind ourselves that the first chapter of the Pact is devoted to boosting the SDGs, which remain dangerously off track. Another takeaway I would like to highlight here is that the implementation of UN commitments does not depend only on governments, but even more critically on parliaments and members of parliament, taking the lead. Too many parliaments are still being sidelined by the executive branch, but this is not destiny. It is up to you as MPs to find the political resolve to use the authority that parliament has, or to reclaim that authority whenever it was taken away. At the same time, It is critical that parliaments find a way to work out their internal differences on key policy questions. MPs from all sides of the political spectrum must be willing to work together to enact laws that meet the aspirations and needs of the people. We need to overcome divisions on critical policies to fight poverty, inequality, and fragility, which are the root causes of citizens' mistrust of institutions. I believe that we had the term mistrust, loss of trust, several times during the deliberations of this annual hearing. We also must overcome the short-termism whereby decisions are taken in view of the next election instead of the long-term collective interest. The declaration on future generations that is in the Pact for the Future is all about this, in a sense. Furthermore, on a more positive note, we can all draw strength and inspiration from the countless illustrations of parliamentary action to affirm democratic values. Many parliaments and leading MPs are actively pushing back against the global backsliding of democracy. The IPU and its various UN partners are working every day to support this movement, including by strengthening capacities for oversight on legislation and supporting greater representation of women, youth, and other vulnerable groups. Indeed, inclusion is the name of the game. A final and most important takeaway provided by several interventions in this room is countries that grow more, that perform better against poverty and inequality, and are less violent and corrupt also happen to possess strong democratic institutions. This shows that democracy, as imperfect as it may be, remains the best cure to all of today's ills, nationally and globally. There may be no agreed definition of democracy, and certainly there's no way democracy can ever be imported, but it is something we must all aspire to. Madam President, delegates, let me conclude by encouraging all of us to be reminded of these takeaways as we go back home with the message of, as I said, hope and faith.

Thank you.

Let me use the opportunity to return the courtesy to Madam President and thank you very much for your leadership. You have been sitting through the deliberations here and I'm sure that there are a lot of things that you are taking away too and that will help you in your leadership of the organization. I want to thank you very much for that contribution And I also want, in the absence of the President of the General Assembly, to convey my heartfelt thanks to her for joining us in convening this very important annual hearing, which has witnessed, as the objective was, an interaction between the parliamentary community and the United Nations in the noble effort to help fix the problems that are plaguing the world today. I will also use the opportunity to thank the panelists, the moderator. Thank you very much, Dan.

Thank you.

Great job once again, and we are very glad that you've been able to steer the deliberations in a way that is most productive and fruitful for all of us. I use the opportunity— it's not every day that we blow our own trumpets. I want to convey to my colleagues here in the New York office of the IPU my own personal thanks and appreciation for the efforts that you have put into the organization of this meeting. I see the traffic happening here in New York and between New York and the capital and this happens way back, maybe 2, 3 months before the actual event, and so I know the personal sacrifices that you have endured in order to make sure that we have fruitful deliberations here. Thank you very much for that, and of course, the unsung heroes sitting in the booth up there, the interpreters, the room attendants here, and all those hosts here at the United Nations. [SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Africans who have given us these wonderful conditions for our work. So thank you very much, and I hope you will all have a safe trip back home. Thank you very much.

Thank you.