UNESCO’s fight for relevance

By Esther Paniagua | Contributor 

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization will survive the Trump administration’s decision to pull the United States out of the cultural agency. After all, he did the same thing in his first term. The agency has long faced blowback from Washington over its stance toward Israel, from President Ronald Reagan’s decision to part ways in 1985 to funding cuts during the Obama administration in 2011. But if history is any indication, the United States will return to the organization it helped found almost 80 years ago. 

There is a bigger existential threat, however, facing UNESCO and many other traditional, multinational organizations, for that matter. How do these lumbering, slow-moving and bureaucratic institutions remain relevant and essential amid the sweeping changes and challenges brought by the rapid global adoption of artificial intelligence, particularly generative AI?

While the United States and China are locked in a race to dominate AI, and Brussels pursues a shaky plan to regulate Big Tech, the rest of the world is struggling to just keep up with the apparently—sometimes performative— breakneck pace of technology development, desperate not to be left behind in an inevitable new reality of global AI “haves” and “have-nots.”

Gabriela Ramos, UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for the Social and Human Sciences and the driving force behind the organization’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, says the cultural institution can be an essential asset in shaping ethical and inclusive approaches to AI. By embedding human rights, cultural diversity and social equity into national strategies through the world’s first universal framework on the ethics of artificial intelligence, UNESCO aims for the Global Majority not just to adapt to AI, but to actively participate in and influence its governance on their own terms.

“Our role is to help member states become better equipped for the policy debate, assisting them in accelerating the development of legal and policy frameworks to ensure these technologies have a positive impact,” says Ramos. For her, AI must be regulated just as tightly as aviation or healthcare: “AI is not just a cross-cutting tool, but an industry. We must understand the business model, address monopolies through competition policies, and establish quality standards for data use.”

Ramos warns against both overregulation and regulatory voids. “We must hold actors accountable when harms occur, and ensure that the digital space is not a Wild West. At stake are our privacy, our security and our democracies,” says the UNESCO executive, who had been campaigning to become the agency’s next director-general, nominated by Mexico.

On Aug. 22, Ramos withdrew her candidacy, “to demonstrate unity and solidarity, as UNESCO —and the United Nations system— faces one of its most complex periods since its founding.” As of Sept. 9, 2025, two contenders remain in the race: Khaled al-Anani of Egypt, a former minister and Egyptologist with strong backing from the African Union, the Arab League, France, Spain, Brazil and others; and Firmin Edouard Matoko of Congo, a longtime UNESCO insider.

In early October, UNESCO’s Executive Board will select a single nominee to be confirmed by the General Conference. With months of campaigning behind him and a strong coalition of international backers, al-Anani is widely viewed as the frontrunner.

How might this leadership race shape UNESCO’s approach to AI? Matoko has pledged continuity with UNESCO’s AI Ethics Recommendation. Al-Anani has spoken more generally of expanding the application of ethical AI and other technologies “across its fields of competence, promoting the implementation of science-related recommendations.”

Ramos believes both candidates would likely maintain the Recommendation and continue supporting national readiness assessments, “as there is broad consensus for it within UNESCO.” However, Egypt’s political context, and al-Anani’s ties to President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, could soften certain elements. That might mean downplaying the surveillance ban in official guidance, weakening language on biometric use in public spaces, limiting civil-society consultations, or prioritizing economic development and security over rights, privacy, and inclusion.

This leadership change matters now especially within a turbulent global environment. The next director-general must rally member states, preserve UNESCO’s relevance and navigate a world where faith in multilateral institutions is waning, compounded by Washington’s decision to withdraw once again from the agency.

“UNESCO will survive,” Ramos says, “but universality matters. And the U.S. will lose influence on key policy areas [like AI] by staying out. Not being at the table is not in their best interest.”

If the current U.S. administration continues to distance itself from international institutions, Ramos argues, the best course is to keep proving that “the multilateral path is the most solid, effective and lasting.” Still, she acknowledges some of the  criticisms from Washington: “It is true these institutions need to be reformed to become more agile and less bureaucratic.”

For her, UNESCO urgently needs not just reform, but a clearer vision. What role should it play in a world where skepticism toward multilateralism is growing? Too often, she says, the debate is polarized: some dismiss such bodies entirely, while others defend them blindly, ignoring the need for change.

Ana Brandusescu, a policy analyst and researcher at McGill University, offers another perspective. She sees UNESCO as “a steward of culture and knowledge,” akin to public libraries. Both are increasingly threatened by the rapid adoption of AI in education and the deprioritization of investments in books, community events, and physical spaces.

“UNESCO’s real strength lies in its decades of expertise in knowledge preservation and sharing, and its ability to connect with communities that are being marginalized,” she says. “It’s about remembering what they bring to the table and reconnecting with these communities.” That, too, is innovation.

With the quality of democracy deteriorating in many countries and autocracies outnumbering democratic countries, Brandusescu believes that UNESCO and other multilateral institutions must step up to protect the public. However, the road ahead is fraught with obstacles. The world’s most powerful nations increasingly pursue their own paths, raising doubts about the future of multilateralism when its biggest stakeholders show little interest.

Ultimately, UNESCO’s struggle is not just about surviving U.S. withdrawals or managing the promises and perils of AI. As Ramos notes, it’s about proving relevance. Can the institution prove that multilateralism can still deliver in an era when the largest powers increasingly see global rules as optional? The outcome will reveal not only UNESCO’s fate, but also whether international cooperation itself can endure the centrifugal forces of the 21st century.

“We need to provide evidence of why this cooperation to address these issues must be global,” Ramos says. “We cannot ignore the fact that we live in a very contentious, divided world. Yet addressing these challenges requires everyone at the table.”