| Introduction

The election of Trump in November 2016, whose chances even within the Republican Party were considered low, surprised everyone. His domestic and foreign policies, which departed from the tradition of the U.S. government, were regarded as an aberration stemming from his individual character. With Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election, Trump's aberration appeared, for a time, to be turning into a page of history. However, due to the Democratic Party's missteps and the consolidation of the MAGA base, Trump returned to power in 2024, and an America First policy, now unchecked domestically and uncoordinated externally, has been pursued with even greater ardor. The greatest problem with Trump's foreign policy is pointed to as its pattern of undermining trust with allies, destroying the liberal international order that the United States itself had built, and instead validating the interests of authoritarian leaders.

It should also be noted that Trump's America is paralyzing the functions of various international organizations, including the United Nations, by withdrawing support from or withdrawing from them altogether, thereby undermining not only the U.S. alliance structure but also the multilateral system, one of the pillars of the liberal international order. Despite some problems that have long been pointed out, the UN has for a long time served as humanity's "most cost-efficient and effective tool," performing a variety of roles that are difficult for any single state to undertake. This is because the UN has restored and sustained peace in conflict zones around the world while protecting civilians in wartime, and has saved countless lives through food and medical assistance to underdeveloped countries, particularly medical support such as childhood vaccination, and has more recently played a central role in achieving climate change response and sustainable development, a shared challenge for humanity.

Having overcorrected for their earlier misjudgments about Trump, opinion at home and abroad now holds that his policies reflect both the sentiment of most American voters and a fundamental shift in the international order, and that current U.S. policy will therefore be difficult to change even after his term ends. On this diagnosis, a might-makes-right logic, in which the strong prey on the weak and each state fends for itself, has become the baseline of international society, and the liberal, rules-based order has been doomed for good. Yet it is not clear whether America First and geopolitical tensions between the United States and China will continue to constrain the UN's room for maneuver after Trump leaves office. If anything, depending on how domestic U.S. politics and the international order unfold, the possibility that the value of the UN and multilateralism will be rediscovered, and that the UN will recover its proper role, cannot be ruled out.

For Korea, which has had deep ties with the UN since its founding, the fact that it joined only after the Cold War has not prevented it from performing remarkably at the organization, repaying the international community's help and taking part in addressing the common challenges of humanity. It would be unwise for Korea to follow suit and abandon its own UN diplomacy simply because the Trump administration disregards the UN. For a middle power like Korea, rather than a great power such as the United States, multilateralism¹⁾ serves the national interest. The UN is not only a stage for Korea's contributions to the international community but also matters as a venue for the ongoing discussion of Korean Peninsula issues. As a leading UN member, Korea should actively develop and drive the UN agendas it will spearhead, further strengthen the capacity of its Permanent Mission to the UN, and expand the presence of its nationals in the UN Secretariat, thereby taking a central role in the running of the UN and in turn securing its national interest.

| The Evolving Role of the UN and New Challenges

Pax Britannica, the British-led hegemony that had been sustained on the principle of the balance of power since the nineteenth century, collapsed with the First World War. In its aftermath, the international community created the League of Nations, institutionalizing the peaceful settlement of disputes and introducing the first collective security system. Yet the League, lacking the authority to take enforcement measures and without the participation of the United States, failed to halt German and Japanese aggression in Europe and Asia, and could not prevent the Second World War. Learning from this failure, the United States after the Second World War built a strengthened collective security system by forming a Security Council of major allies granted special privileges, and created the UN under the ambitious goal of preventing another war. Together with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank that the United States established, the UN functioned as one of the central pillars of the postwar liberal order.

However, in reality, amid the East-West Cold War that unfolded as competition between the superpowers of the United States and the Soviet Union, and the proxy wars between the two blocs that erupted across the world, the Security Council, which must make decisions on matters of war and peace, saw its functions degraded by U.S.-Soviet confrontation and the exercise of the veto. Meanwhile, as numerous newly independent states in Asia and Africa, having emerged from former colonial rule, joined the United Nations, they came to dominate the discourse of the General Assembly.²⁾ The General Assembly achieves considerable progress by focusing the international community's attention on the development problems of less developed countries and on redressing inequality, and by creating related agencies, but it also becomes a venue where rejection of the West's former colonial powers is expressed, and where criticism is voiced against Israel's repeated unilateral actions in connection with the Middle East wars and against the United States for shielding Israel. The United States gradually grows skeptical of the very United Nations it had established, and in particular, at institutions such as UNESCO, cites pro-Soviet leanings and anti-American/anti-Israeli positions as grounds for withdrawing (1984) despite later rejoining (2003).

Although the Korean War remains the only instance in which the United Nations realized collective security under the Cold War structure, the UN has continued to serve, whenever international problems arise, as a venue for the peaceful resolution of disputes through discussion and deliberation. Even in cases where it has failed to prevent conflict itself, the UN makes an important contribution to sustaining peace once a ceasefire is established, through the deployment of peacekeeping forces, and to protecting civilians amid ongoing conflict. In addition, alongside peace, the UN has continued to perform the role of raising international awareness, mobilizing resources, establishing new institutions, and developing norms with respect to development and human rights, the other two of the three pillars of the UN's goals.³⁾

In the 1990s, with the collapse of the Soviet Union bringing the East-West Cold War to an end and a U.S.-centered unipolar order taking hold, the United States (under the Clinton administration) pursued the spread of democratic values and globalization, and the U.S. Ambassador to the UN (Albright), whose position was elevated to cabinet rank, joined in this effort, further strengthening the UN's role. To be sure, the September 11, 2001 attacks brought to the fore the threat of terrorism by non-state actors under the new international order, but the international community also demonstrated unity in responding swiftly to this threat, centered on the UN.⁴⁾ In line with the "Millennium Summit" held in 2000, the UN adopted the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and was celebrated for its role in leading humanity toward the future.⁵⁾ With the continued encouragement of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who took over the UN Secretariat in 2007, the international community's efforts through the target year of 2015 led to the achievement of most of the Millennium Development Goals, including halving extreme poverty. In 2015, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon adopted the far-reaching 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), encompassing climate change, gender, and biodiversity, becoming the focal point for galvanizing global efforts to secure humanity's future. In particular, the Paris Agreement on climate change, adopted in December 2015, adopted a strategy centered on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by country aimed at achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 to keep the global temperature rise below 2.0 degrees.⁶⁾

However, since Trump's election in 2016, and especially since the start of Trump's second term, indifference toward multilateralism and the withdrawal of support from various international organizations, all under the banner of America First, have significantly undermined the UN's standing. In particular, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, committed by a permanent member of the Security Council that bears an even heavier responsibility for upholding the UN Charter, has divided the Security Council, and skepticism about the UN's relevance is spreading among member states.

| Trump's America and UN Multilateralism

First, in line with its "America First" policy stance, the Trump administration froze funding to UN agencies and withdrew from them one after another, weakening the multilateral system. In October 2017, it announced its renewed withdrawal from UNESCO, citing the organization's anti-Israel bias and its arrears in dues;⁷⁾ in June 2018, it withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), criticizing it as a "hotbed of political bias"; and in August 2018, it completely halted U.S. funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). In July 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, it initiated formal withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), alleging the organization's pro-China leanings.⁸⁾ In addition, it cut or withheld payment of the ceiling on peacekeeping budgets and core UN assessed contributions, inflicting serious financial hardship on the UN as a whole.

On his first day in office at the start of his second term in January 2025, Trump signed an executive order to withdraw once again from the Paris Climate Agreement, which the Biden administration had rejoined, and to resume the process of withdrawing from the WHO. In February 2025, he issued an executive order mandating a full, 180-day review of U.S. support for and membership in all international organizations, a process through which renewed withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council and a permanent ban on funding to UNRWA were finalized; and in January 2026, citing their failure to align with U.S. global interests and their propagation of biased ideologies, he signed a presidential memorandum directing simultaneous withdrawal from a total of 66 international organizations, including 31 UN-affiliated bodies.⁹⁾ These measures by the Trump administration have significantly curtailed the UN's capacity, weakening not only the international community's ability to respond to global climate change but also, paradoxically, reducing the United States' own influence within the multilateral diplomatic system.

These measures by the Trump administration are grounded in the following logic: ① that multilateral institutions infringe upon the United States' independent judicial and administrative authority and its national sovereignty; ② that global bureaucrats are squandering American taxpayers' money;¹⁰⁾ ③ that UN agencies have been corrupted into vehicles for propagating radical climate policies and left-wing political ideologies that conflict with traditional American values (a culture war); and ④ that the United States will no longer tolerate a "free-riding structure" in which it bears financial responsibility for international organizations while other member states merely criticize the United States. This is interpreted as a message stemming from the psychology that "the United States will no longer allow itself to be taken advantage of," similar to the pressure applied on NATO member states to increase their financial contributions. It is thus analyzed that a diplomatic calculation is at the heart of all these moves: to withdraw completely from these institutions and instead lead international relations by securing maximum benefit through bilateral negotiations, where U.S. leverage can be applied more effectively.

Meanwhile, the Security Council, divided by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, a blatant violation of international law, amid deepening U.S.-China strategic competition and geopolitical tensions, has been unable to take any action against this act of aggression. Meanwhile, as Israel, having come under attack by Hamas, has imposed an excessive and inhumane blockade on the population of Gaza, the United States has exercised its veto six times on Israel's behalf, and eventually the United States itself has come to face accusations of violating international law through its invasion of Venezuela and Iran. As a result, amid continuing confrontation in the Security Council and General Assembly, the UN is facing a crisis of credibility and effectiveness. Against this backdrop, the UN has entered the race to elect its tenth Secretary-General, with candidates striving to present a vision that will establish the organization's future role and standing.

| The Selection of the Tenth Secretary-General of the United Nations

After the first two Secretaries-General (Trygve Lie of Norway and Dag Hammarskjöld of Sweden) both came from Europe, the United Nations has informally maintained a tradition of selecting Secretaries-General in rotation among regional groups.¹¹⁾ The United States, which holds the greatest influence in this process, does not formally recognize the principle of regional rotation and instead emphasizes selection based on candidates' merit, but it has never rejected a candidate who followed the regional rotation principle. Another factor is that calls for a woman to be selected as Secretary-General, which first emerged at the time of the selection of the eighth Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, and were again frustrated at the selection of the ninth Secretary-General, Guterres, have grown even louder this time, with mounting public sentiment that a woman must finally be chosen. While U.S. support for a UN Secretary-General candidate has always been the single most important factor,¹²⁾ a third factor is President Trump's tendency to strongly impose his own preferences on every matter. Moreover, Trump is known to have little interest either in UN tradition or in the public sentiment favoring a female Secretary-General.

The candidates from the Latin American and Caribbean regional group currently in the race include former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet (former Executive Director of UN Women, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights), current IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi of Argentina, former Costa Rican Vice President Rebeca Grynspan (former Secretary-General of UNCTAD), María Fernanda Espinosa of Ecuador (former Minister of Foreign Affairs), and Guyana's current Permanent Representative to the UN, Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, who joined the race belatedly; among these, Grossi is the only man.¹³⁾ In addition, former Senegalese President Macky Sall has also entered the race, though he does not belong to the Latin American and Caribbean group. On the surface, Bachelet, a woman who has served twice as President of Chile, appears to hold the highest standing, but after a conservative candidate won Chile's own presidential election, Chile withdrew its support for Bachelet, leaving her instead nominated by Brazil and Mexico, both left-leaning governments at some distance from Trump. Argentina's President Milei, the home-country leader of IAEA chief Grossi, enjoys Trump's favor owing to his right-wing policies,¹⁴⁾ and it is anticipated that this favor may well carry over into support for Grossi in the Secretary-General race as well.

Of course, China and Russia are also important permanent members, so their preferences will matter as well, but as of now, neither country has indicated a preferred candidate. France has traditionally placed importance on a Secretary-General's command of the French language, and in practice has made the appointment of a French national to the post of Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations a condition for not exercising its veto, a demand that all Secretaries-General since Kofi Annan have accepted. The United Kingdom has put forward its own fairly strict merit-based criteria, though there is no known instance of this leading all the way to a veto; it has also been reported that, out of concern that the UN's neutrality could be compromised in connection with the Falklands/Malvinas dispute, the UK may be unfavorably disposed toward the Argentine candidate, but it does not appear likely that this would go so far as an actual veto.¹⁵⁾

An informal vote known as the "Straw Poll" is expected to begin shortly in the Security Council. Through several rounds of voting, the Council gauges which candidate is drawing majority support among Council members without triggering a veto from any permanent member. Once it becomes clear that support among Council members has converged on a particular candidate, the Council puts the matter to a formal vote, unanimously designates that candidate, and "recommends" him or her to the General Assembly, which then also generally elects the candidate by acclamation. For the first two years, the new Secretary-General will have to coexist with President Trump, and for the time being, securing the UN's finances and working to restore its proper role will be the top priority. The United Nations is an organization formed and led by its member states, not one owned by the Secretariat or the Secretary-General. In that sense, the Secretary-General selection could well become an occasion for the international community to be reminded of the value of multilateral diplomacy and to breathe new life into the United Nations.

It is difficult to foresee whether the United States' policy toward the UN will remain unchanged for the rest of Trump's term, how U.S. foreign policy will evolve after Trump, and how geopolitical rivalry among major powers will unfold. Over the past eighty years, the United Nations has weathered numerous vicissitudes in response to shifting international circumstances, yet it has maintained its resilience through a recurring pattern of returning to the center of international diplomacy. In the end, much will hinge on the outcome of the 2028 U.S. presidential election, but it is hoped that the international community, having pushed back against the unconventional policies of the Trump administration, may, together with its aspiration to restore the liberal international order, revitalize multilateralism and the role of the United Nations as an institution for all of humanity.

| Implications for South Korea's UN Diplomacy

From its very inception, South Korea has been directly bound up with the United Nations, yet due to the East-West Cold War, both South and North Korea participated only as observer states and were unable to become full members. While the UN was mainly used as an arena for inter-Korean confrontation, the two Koreas belatedly joined the UN simultaneously in 1991, with the end of the Cold War. Since then, Korea has pursued active engagement on the UN stage and has contributed in various ways. Over a period of 35 years, Korea has served three terms as a Security Council member (1996-1997, 2013-2014, 2024-2025) and stands as a leading country that has produced both Han Seung-soo, President of the 56th session of the UN General Assembly (then Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade), and Ban Ki-moon, the eighth UN Secretary-General (2007-2016). At the Jeju Forum held on June 23, all of the UN Secretary-General candidates were in attendance, presenting their platforms and expressing hope for Ban Ki-moon's endorsement.¹⁶⁾ This is regarded as reflecting both Korea's standing on the multilateral diplomatic stage, even though it is not currently a Security Council member, and the broad respect the international community holds for Ban Ki-moon, the eighth Secretary-General, who left behind a substantial record of achievement during his tenure.

At present, the UN's role and standing are undergoing a temporary phase of constraint, but it would not suit Korea's position to follow the current U.S. administration's example of disregarding the UN. This is because Korea is not a great power capable of dictating the international order the way the United States does, and instead finds itself in a position where it must actively make use of, and further safeguard, a multilateral order that favors middle powers like itself.¹⁷⁾ Korea should therefore make active efforts to make full use of the UN stage.

First, as was observed even during Trump's first term,¹⁸⁾ when his administration was relatively passive toward the UN, issues related to peace and security on the Korean Peninsula are fiercely debated at the UN regardless of the U.S. administration's attitude, and these debates go on to shape international public opinion on the matter. The Korean government must come up with solid positions and present them clearly on the UN stage, the world's forum for debate, in order to secure international support and safeguard its national interests amid an increasingly volatile situation on the Korean Peninsula. This is all the more important given the current situation, in which the Security Council is divided as China and Russia shield North Korea amid geopolitical conflict and the war in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, under the UN's paralyzed Security Council system, Korea needs to secure its national interests through creative means. In October 2024, working in close cooperation with the United States, the Korean government launched the Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team (MSMT), made up of eleven like-minded countries, to take the place of the Security Council's DPRK sanctions panel, which had been disbanded following Russia's veto.¹⁹⁾ Korea should make use of this body as a base for formulating its strategy on Korean Peninsula issues within the UN. In addition, with respect to the North Korean human rights resolution that the UN General Assembly has adopted since 2005, Korea should continue to exercise consistent leadership, drawing the international community's attention to improving the human rights of the North Korean people and maintaining its standing as an advanced country committed to defending universal human rights. The network of cooperation with like-minded states, particularly middle powers, that has formed through the process of adopting the North Korean human rights resolution can also serve as an important foundation for Korea's UN diplomacy.

As a universal organization, the UN is ideally suited to responding to common challenges facing humanity, and Korea should take a leading approach in this area as well. In particular, Korea should play an even more active role on forward-looking issues such as artificial intelligence, an area in which Korea is technologically advanced, along with digital governance and climate change response more broadly.²⁰⁾ Through various initiatives at the UN, Korea can also strengthen cooperation with the Global South and broaden the base of its UN diplomacy. In particular, drawing on its experience of having served as President of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, Korea should continue to preempt relevant agendas and pursue outreach to the Global South, home to many states with development needs and to many parties to ongoing conflicts.

At the same time, since 2022, Korea has been the ninth-largest²¹⁾ contributor²²⁾ to the UN, paying $6.81 million in 2026, or 2.349 percent of the $3.5 billion UN regular budget.²³⁾ The problem is that, relative to the size of its contribution, the presence of Korean nationals within the UN Secretariat remains far too low.²⁴⁾ According to UN data, as of 2025, Korean nationals numbered only 665 out of the 120,176 staff across the entire UN system, or a mere 0.6 percent,²⁵⁾ and not a single Korean national holds a senior post at the Under-Secretary-General (USG) or Assistant Secretary-General (ASG) level, ranks equivalent to a government minister or vice minister.²⁶⁾ UN staff, as international civil servants, are meant to serve the interests of the world and of humanity as a whole rather than the interests of their own countries. Yet major powers, however diminished the UN's standing may have become, engage in the strategic practice of placing their own nationals in key departments and posts within the UN, thereby observing internal developments within the Secretariat that are not shared externally and ensuring their own countries' positions are properly reflected in internal deliberations. Korea, however, has no such personnel presence whatsoever.

The Korean government should take a keen interest in, and actively pursue, the advancement of qualified Korean nationals to senior posts within the UN Secretariat, for the sake of both Korea's international standing and its national interest. In addition, a long-term, strategic approach is needed to cultivate a pool of talent capable of taking on senior UN posts in the future. First and foremost, Korea should support and encourage more young Koreans to apply for and be hired into the UN Secretariat, building a pipeline structure in which they can build careers, work their way up through promotions, and naturally rise to senior positions from within. In parallel, opportunities for career diplomats to be seconded to the Secretariat should be substantially expanded on an institutional basis, so that a greater number of diplomats can accumulate hands-on experience and be groomed into competitive talent for international organizations going forward.

The government should also expand the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the UN itself with staff who possess both expertise and a strong sense of responsibility,²⁷⁾ and, wherever possible, encourage longer tenures so as to deepen expertise, boost morale, and broaden the Mission's functions. It should also closely monitor the ongoing race for the next UN Secretary-General and establish an effective strategy covering the building of a cooperative relationship with the incoming UN leadership, securing support for Korean nationals' advancement to senior Secretariat posts, building a network of friendly states on Korean Peninsula issues, and developing agendas that the Korean government can take the lead on at UN meetings of all levels, thereby continuing efforts to strengthen Korea's voice and exercise leadership within the UN.²⁸⁾

The United Nations, the most universal international organization to have shouldered part of the responsibility for upholding the liberal international order since the end of World War II, will continue to play a role in setting new norms in areas of importance to humanity going forward. In this process, the Korean government must accurately read the currents of the international community and actively reflect its own positions. In particular, on new issues that will shape the future international order, Korea should participate actively, taking the lead in discussions and strengthening mutual support with its allies and friendly states, so as to continue playing a leading role for the Republic of Korea within the international community.

1. Here, the multilateral system does not simply mean the participation of three or more countries; rather, it refers to a system in which multiple countries cooperate to build an arrangement that benefits all participants, after which participating states comply with its rules on an equal footing.
2. Originally, the Secretary-General's role was confined to that of a chief administrator, tasked only with administratively implementing the decisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. However, as U.S.-Soviet confrontation divided the Security Council and the General Assembly, and situations arose that the Secretary-General and the Secretariat were left to resolve on their own, the Secretary-General's role and authority gradually expanded, and the Secretary-General came to serve as the symbol of the United Nations, an organization that was originally a gathering of its member states.
3. The UN's contributions have been recognized through the Nobel Peace Prizes awarded to the UN and its affiliated bodies: the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 1954 and 1981; the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) in 1965; the International Labour Organization (ILO) in 1969; UN Peacekeeping Forces in 1988; the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2005; and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007. In 2001, the prize was awarded to "Kofi Annan and the United Nations," and it was received on behalf of the UN by Han Seung-soo, President of the UN General Assembly.
4. The adoption of Security Council Resolution 1373, which outlawed support for terrorism; the establishment of the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) to oversee its implementation, along with the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED), created within the Secretariat to support the Committee's work; the various sanctions imposed on terrorist organizations by the Security Council's 1267 Committee; the General Assembly's adoption of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and the swift drafting and ratification of a range of counter-terrorism conventions, among other achievements.
5. However, when the U.S. invasion of Iraq went ahead without Security Council authorization, and Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who had criticized the invasion, lost U.S. support and rapidly fell from favor amid investigations into corruption in the Oil-for-Food Programme (OFFP) and his son's alleged involvement, it became clear just how vulnerable the United Nations is to the withdrawal of a great power's support.
6. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon received support from President Bush during his first two years in office, with Bush even attending the first-ever UN summit on climate change despite his usual convictions to the contrary, both at the time of Ban's election and in the years that followed; and over the eight years that followed, Ban was able to build a substantial record of achievement working alongside President Obama, who embraced multilateralism. Fortunately for Ban, his term ended in late 2016, before President Trump's inauguration in January 2017.
7. NYT (2017.10.12.) U.S. Will Withdraw From Unesco, Citing Its 'Anti-Israel Bias'
8. ABC (2025.1.23.) US officially exits World Health Organization, accusing agency of straying 'from its core mission'
9. Euronews (2026.1.8.) Trump withdraws US from UN climate treaty and 65 other global bodies
10. Washington Examiner (2026.5.1.) The United Nations demands billions from American taxpayers
11. Third: Asia/Burma - U Thant; Fourth: Europe/Austria - Waldheim; Fifth: Latin America/Peru - Pérez de Cuéllar; Sixth/Seventh: Africa/Egypt · Ghana - Boutros-Ghali/Annan; Eighth: Asia/Republic of Korea - Ban Ki-moon; Ninth: Europe/Portugal - Guterres
12. At the time of Ban Ki-moon's selection, while U.S. support was essential, becoming known early in the race as "Washington's choice" risked raising Chinese and Russian suspicions that the candidate was an American puppet, thereby increasing the likelihood of a Chinese or Russian veto; for this reason, open U.S. support was referred to as a "kiss of death." In this year's race, however, it has become the single most important factor from the very outset.
13. The Latin American and Caribbean regional group is known at the UN as GRULAC (Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries), and it encompasses all of Latin America south of Mexico as well as the island states of the Caribbean.
14. This is borne out by the case of October 2025, when, just ahead of Argentina's midterm elections, the Trump administration provided a $20 billion currency swap to help stabilize the Argentine peso.
15. The United Kingdom voiced opposition to the candidacy of Susana Malcorra, Argentina's former foreign minister and former chief of staff to Ban Ki-moon, when she ran for Secretary-General in 2016, and, in the 2022 election of judges to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), British organizations similarly expressed concerns about an Argentine candidate. It remains uncertain whether the recent Falklands/Malvinas controversy sparked by a World Cup match will influence the UK's position, but the UK is expected to try, as far as possible, to align itself with the U.S. position.
16. JoongAng Ilbo (June 26, 2026), "Candidates for the Next UN Secretary-General Gather in Jeju United in Calling for 'UN Reform'"
17. To borrow an analogy from economics, Korea is not a monopoly producer capable of setting prices in the market (a "price-setter"); rather, it is a market participant that takes the price formed in the market as a given and structures its own production accordingly (a "price-taker").
18. Between March 2017 and March 2018, during Trump's first term, the UN Security Council, with the participation of the United States, China, and Russia, adopted six resolutions on North Korea (2345, 2356, 2371, 2375, 2397, and 2407).
19. YTN (October 16, 2024), "Establishment of the Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team (MSMT) to Monitor Violations of North Korea Sanctions"
20. In September 2025, as President of the Security Council, South Korea took the lead in convening an open debate on "Artificial Intelligence and International Peace and Security," among other events. This coincided with the UN General Assembly's high-level week, presenting a valuable opportunity for the Korean president to preside over a Security Council meeting attended by heads of state and thereby exercise leadership; it is regrettable that this opportunity was not put to even more active use.
21. The United States, China, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Canada, followed by
22. Chosun Ilbo (December 5, 2023), "Following the Kim Young-sam and Park Geun-hye Administrations, Korea Enters the Security Council Once Again Under the Yoon Government Ranked 9th Worldwide in UN Dues, a Symbol of National Power"
23. South Korea also ranks ninth in the UN peacekeeping budget, contributing $12.66 million out of a total of $5.4 billion
24. Contributing countries with larger UN assessed contributions typically have greater say in, and more actively support, the advancement of their own nationals within the Secretariat. UN staff members do not pay income tax to their country of duty station, but the UN deducts a portion of their salary under a mechanism known as "staff assessment," and this amount is then credited against, and used to reduce, the assessed contribution owed by the staff member's country of nationality, effectively producing the same result as if the staff member had paid tax to their own country.
25. UN CEB/Chief Executive Board Website, Human Resources Statistics
26. Chosun Ilbo (Correspondent's Report, June 12, 2026), "Korean Diplomacy Without a 'Second Ban Ki-moon'"
27. Chun Yung-woo (Chosun Ilbo, June 15, 2026), "The Abuse of the Special Envoy Ambassador System Has Gone Too Far"
28. When South Korea served as a non-permanent member of the Security Council in 1996 and 1997, it took part in the process that selected Kofi Annan as Secretary-General, and went on to produce its first Assistant Secretary-General, Choi Young-jin, who served as Assistant Secretary-General for Logistics in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and later as Korea's Permanent Representative to the UN from 2005 to 2007. It is somewhat regrettable that, during Korea's more recent term on the Council (2024-2025), a similar strategic opportunity to be involved in the process of selecting the next Secretary-General could have been leveraged more deliberately, which might have proven advantageous in terms of securing senior Secretariat appointments for Korean nationals.

※ The opinions expressed in 'Sejong Focus' are those of the author and do not represent the official views of Sejong Institute.