We the Peoples: shaping the future of the UN

HLPF special event · 9 July 2026 · UN Headquarters, New York
Session
“We the Peoples: Shaping the Future of the United Nations,” HLPF special event (3:30 to 5:30 PM)
Convener
The Executive Office of the Secretary-General
Moderator
Rajesh Mirchandani
Participating throughout
António Guterres (Secretary-General of the United Nations), who opened the event and responded after each of the three panels
Panels
Civil-society leaders across three segments: regional perspectives; the three UN pillars; and from the Pact for the Future to UN80. Speakers included Emilia Reyes (Equidad de Género, Mexico), Anselmo Lee (Asia Civil Society Partnership for Sustainable Development) and Nudhara Yusuf (co-chair, Coalition for the UN We Need)

The Secretary-General’s last HLPF

António Guterres sat through the entire event, answering after each panel rather than delivering remarks and leaving. His second term ends on 31 December 2026, and he said plainly that he intends to return to civil society afterwards. That lent the session an unusual candour, because the reform he was defending, the UN80 Initiative, will mostly be executed by someone else.

His framing of the reform was that the UN’s three pillars cannot be separated, a proposition he has spent a decade arguing against member states who would prefer the organisation stick to peace and security.

António Guterres: “There is no way you can guarantee peace and security if there is no development. Peace and security, inclusive development, and respect and promotion of human rights are three faces of the same coin.”

From participation to partnership

The phrase the room kept returning to was the Secretary-General’s own, and it concedes the criticism it answers: that consultation with civil society has been a ritual with no consequence for decisions.

António Guterres: “Genuine engagement must be structured, sustained, and linked to decision making. That means moving from participation to partnerships and from consultation to creation.”

He was then unusually direct about why that is hard, in a sentence that a Secretary-General is not obliged to say out loud.

António Guterres: “This is an intergovernmental organization, and governments do whatever they can to limit the participation of civil society.”

Civil-society speakers pressed for something more concrete than a slogan, repeatedly citing the governing board of UNAIDS, where civil-society representatives have sat with the same standing as member states since 1995, as proof that the UN system can do this when it chooses to.

A panellist for the UNECE region: “In the coordinating board of UNAIDS, there are five civil society representatives which have the same power as member states. It was established in 1995. Can we make UN in the future the same?”

Others noted that the practical barriers are getting worse rather than better: shrinking budgets, visa refusals, and delegates who censor themselves because they have to go home afterwards. One panellist asked whether the Commission on the Status of Women should move out of New York entirely, on the grounds that a conversation missing half its participants is not the conversation it claims to be.

Measuring what did not happen

The sharpest contribution for a project about counting came from Nudhara Yusuf, who co-chairs the Coalition for the UN We Need. Her argument was that the UN measures its success in outputs it can count, and that this systematically undervalues the work that prevents crises from occurring.

Nudhara Yusuf, Coalition for the UN We Need: “No one is measuring success in prevention. No one is measuring the pandemics and wars that didn’t happen, which disadvantages civil society that works on systems.”

It is the measurement problem in its hardest form. A resolution adopted is a number. A war averted is a counterfactual, and no indicator framework yet built can see one. Another speaker made the same move toward lived outcomes, asking whether success should be counted in protocols adopted or in whether women can walk safely at night and exercise bodily autonomy.

The sharpest critique

The event did not resolve into consensus, and the strongest dissent came from Emilia Reyes of the Mexican organisation Equidad de Género, who rejected the premise that a seat at the table is what civil society should be asking for.

Emilia Reyes: “Inclusion in a system that is ecocidal and genocidal is actually a complicity in and of itself.”

Others argued that UN80, arriving as an efficiency and austerity exercise, risks shrinking civic space under the banner of reform, and called for a non-regression principle and human-rights assessments built into it. Anselmo Lee proposed widening the founding phrase itself, from “we the peoples” to include nature and future generations, in line with the Pact for the Future. The Secretary-General’s own answer to the structural question was decentralisation of power: to civil society, to local and regional government, and through reform of the Security Council and the Bretton Woods institutions, which he said represent the world of 1945 rather than the world of today.

Why it matters for the SDGs

This maps to SDG 16 (inclusive institutions) and SDG 17 (partnerships and means of implementation), and it sits directly upstream of everything else this Forum reviewed. Guterres cited the same headline the week has revolved around, that 36% of targets are on track or making moderate progress while 15% have gone into reverse. The architecture question, as Yusuf framed it, is that the SDGs are what has to be delivered, the Pact for the Future is what multilateralism must become to deliver them, and UN80 is what the UN itself must become inside that system. Whether “we the peoples” ends up meaning structural power or remains a preamble is the test the reform has set itself.

Watch & read

Quotations are lightly edited from an automated (Otter.ai) transcript of the UN Web TV recording and should be read as close paraphrase. The Secretary-General’s name and the panellists named above were reconciled against public records; the transcript garbled most participants’ names beyond reliable reconstruction, so the remainder are cited by role or region. Several figures asserted from the floor could not be substantiated and have been omitted.