The Intel

If middle powers like Australia defended multilateralism as vigorously as some states exploit its gaps, the system would look very different. Yet we should be clear that protecting the status quo is not enough. Many multilateral institutions are outdated, blocked, or failing to deliver. Rather than waiting for universal forums to restart, states are increasingly innovating - forming new coalitions at regional and “minilateral” levels to solve pressing problems.

Australia should ask where it can lead in building such coalitions. The UN’s 2024 Pact for the Future provides both a ‘reality check’ of what is possible and a roadmap. Its recommendations need to be understood in a reality that global aid is declining, the Security Council will likely remain paralysed, and the peace and security pillar will stay gridlocked. But crucially it sets out concrete recommendations on reforming International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and strengthening the UN’s role in peacebuilding. These are areas where Australia has both a clear interest, credible history as a norm entrepreneur on the issues, as well as the ability to convene others.

This agenda would directly align with Australia’s potential COP31 presidency, where climate finance will dominate. But it also goes further: it speaks to the development priorities of our regional partners by helping them access greater flows of public and private investment. Reforming the IFIs to make them more responsive to developing countries and more intent on conflict prevention is not a nostalgic defence of the old order. It is a smart, forward-looking strategy that positions Australia as a driver of constructive change.

By championing IFI reform and peace-positive finance, Australia can demonstrate that even in turbulent times, middle powers like it can grow islands of cooperation and not just protect multilateralism, but make it more inclusive, more responsive, and more relevant to the needs of our region.

Australia’s security is contingent on a stable multilateral order. The second Trump Administration has upended expectations that the United States (US) will continue to underpin the multilateral order. US funding cuts are driving the downsizing of United Nations (UN) humanitarian and development agencies. While many would agree there is a need for more efficiencies in the UN with too many overlapping mandates, there has been limited strategic vision from the United States on how to prioritise doing ‘less with less’. The US administration's review into its multilateral priorities is anticipated in the coming months, although it is unlikely it will veer from the retreat currently underway.  

The US administration has expressed interest in getting back to the core ‘peace and security’ business of the UN. Australia’s priorities align with this goal. But, Australia also has an interest in ensuring this ‘core’ includes a human-centric approach to security that addresses the impacts of climate change, gender inequality and human rights abuses. Even where there is a peace agreement, long-term sustainable peace won’t exist if vulnerable groups lack rights, conflict-induced disasters exacerbate fights over land, or there is a lack of transitional justice.  

Australia also benefits from a functioning UN Security Council. While it is easy to dismiss its relevance, the UNSC remains the only forum to legitimise the use of force. Yet, it requires diplomatic investment to reform and adapt the tools at its disposal. This includes mechanisms such as peace operations and sanctions, which are under strain due to geopolitical divisions, and the evolving nature of conflict. Australia should advocate for retaining and modernising these tools in its bilateral engagements. It should prioritise the centrality of human rights and civilian protection as part of these tools and defend international justice mechanisms as core to international peace and security. Such efforts would be timely as Australia seeks another term on the UN Security Council in 2029-2030.

Providing humanitarian and development aid is one of the multilateral system’s core and most visible functions – but it’s also one of its most contested. The global aid system is not broken—it’s working exactly as designed: to serve its own interests, not affected communities. Multilateral institutions continue to function as extensions of Global North foreign policy, with decision-making concentrated in a few donor capitals, multilateral HQs, and in expat clubs. Aid flows are shaped less by need than by proximity to power, connections, and strategic interests. The language of “localisation” and “community-led response” is often a veneer—used to legitimise a system that remains fundamentally extractive.

Most of the multilateral system’s incentives are designed to preserve itself. As budgets shrink, there’s a marked resistance to reducing HQ footprints or rethinking the expansive bureaucracies that consume disproportionate resources. Rather than exploring synergies, clarifying mandates, or reducing duplication, agencies are increasingly locked in turf wars—each fighting to justify its existence as the most essential.

Australia must resist the instinct to protect this architecture. Instead, it should seize this moment to push for a system that is even marginally more accountable to the people it claims to serve. That means funding closer to the ground—bypassing multiple layers of overheads—and resisting the (oh so tempting) comfort of risk transfer that multilaterals offer. But that might be wishful thinking on my part.

In a world where an outdated multilateral system is being questioned, Australia’s credibility may well rest on what it’s willing to let go, challenge and change rather than on what it is looking to preserve.