Should the United Nations continue writing reports?

It’s a heretical question, but a necessary one. Amid deep soul-searching about the future of multilateralism, the UN Secretary-General has questioned the impact of the thousands of reports the organisation produces. Clearly, some reports are critical, like those investigating the role of tech companies in conflict zones. But many are mere bureaucratic rituals. As world leaders gather for the UN General Assembly, here are arguments for and against the UN’s reporting obsession, framed in six dialogues.

Back to basics

Against: The UN’s core relevance is convening nations to negotiate and solve crises. Reporting can distract from this mission. Furthermore, research is often done better by specialised universities and think tanks.

For: The UN’s unique legitimacy can add decisive weight to findings, compelling attention that academic reports lack.

History’s nudge

Against: Diplomacy fails when it drifts from its core function: forging compromises. The Congress of Vienna (1815), a triumph of negotiation, secured a century of relative peace. The Versailles Conference (1919), however, attempted to turn negotiations into a scientific exercise, a fashion of the era, resulting in, among others, the infamous Article 231 (‘War Guilt Clause’), statistically calculated war reparations that humiliated German society and contributed to the birth of Nazism and fast sliding into the Second World War within two decades. The lesson from Vienna and Versailles is timeless: diplomacy is an art, not a science.

For: Careful analysis does not preclude diplomacy; it can prepare negotiators with shared baselines and options—so long as analysis isn’t a substitute for bargaining.

Table 1: Comparative analysis: Congress of Vienna vs. Treaty of Versailles

	Congress of Vienna (1814-1815)	Treaty of Versailles (1919)
Diplomatic approach	The art of pragmatic compromise	The science of punitive calculation and prescription
Key figures	Representatives of all European powers	Woodrow Wilson, Georges Clemenceau, David Lloyd George
Key outcomes	Re-establishment of a balance of power; new borders; Quadruple Alliance to restore conservatism. France was integrated back into the balance of power system, with minimal retribution	Germany was excluded from negotiation and subjected to humiliation, reparations, and disarmament. Punitive reparations; loss of territory and colonies; Article 231 “War Guilt Clause”
Long-term legacy	Avoid major continental war for century.	Fueled German resentment and ultranationalism, contributing directly to the rise of Nazism and a second World War

Reports don’t stop wars

Against: The League of Nations meticulously documented aggression, yet still failed to prevent World War II. An impeccable diagnosis is meaningless without the political will to act. We confuse awareness with solutions.

For: It’s a strawman to argue that reports alone can stop wars. Their value is in creating a shared, factual baseline for action, without which diplomacy is adrift.

The hidden politics of drafting

Against: UN reports are not pure, evidence-based insights. They are products of negotiation. Drafters act as tacit diplomats, softening language and burying findings to avoid offending powerful states. The result prioritises political consensus over bold truth-telling. This should be called what it is: negotiation, not reporting.

For: This very process can be a strength. Drafting reports provides an informal space to test ideas and potential compromises away from the glare of formal negotiations.

The trust gap

Against: In an era of deep geopolitical divides and declining trust in institutions, will a state ever prefer a UN report over analysis from its national agencies or favoured think tanks? Unlikely. Pursuing “neutral” reports is thus a waste of scarce resources.

For: Precisely because trust is eroding, independent UN reports are vital. They can rebuild confidence by grounding debates in verifiable facts and arguments.

The AI shift

Against: AI is already automating analytical tasks. What takes UN desk officers months can be done in minutes with similar factual accuracy. How can we justify extensive human-driven desk research when AI can synthesise information so efficiently?

For: AI excels at aggregation, but human reporting must find its niche in counter-intuitive thinking, reading between the lines, and understanding nuance. The challenge for the UN is to dive deeper into these uniquely human creative layers.

---

A proposal: Fewer PDFs, more diplomacy

The UN should not abandon evidence, but treat ‘science’ as a supplement to, not a replacement for, the art of diplomacy.

If reports are needed, they must be ruthlessly concise: outlining core positions, clear options, and honest trade-offs. The world is drowning in information but starving for wisdom and action. The UN should lead a shift from a flood of PDFs to a focus on actionable insight.

This means re-investing energy and resources into the organisation’s raison d’être: convening, facilitating, and negotiating. The focus should be on building mediation capacity, creating informal dialogue spaces, and perfecting the unglamorous work of getting adversaries in a room to talk.

A return to these basics won’t solve all global problems, but it is a necessary step. Is this a misdiagnosis? Are UN reports more valuable than I give them credit for?

In the meantime, follow our hybrid (human and artificial) intelligence reporting from the UN General Assembly this week.