UN leaders question whether the world body can still deliver

Leaders at the United Nations General Assembly have used this year’s debate to challenge the organisation’s effectiveness, arguing that a system built after the Second World War is struggling to manage today’s shared problems.

The Independent, drawing on Associated Press reporting, said more than 150 speeches repeatedly returned to the same tension: governments want international cooperation, but many no longer believe the UN is capable of providing it. The meeting’s official theme was restoring trust, yet the remarks delivered by national leaders suggested that confidence in the organisation is severely strained.

Questions about the UN’s relevance came from countries of different sizes and political outlooks. El Salvador’s foreign minister, Alexandra Hill Tinoco, asked whether the organisation remained relevant. Other speakers described a world marked by conflict, suspicion, unequal influence and an apparent inability to turn agreement into action.

The debate matters because the UN was created to prevent a repeat of the kind of global conflict that had devastated the world by 1945. Its central promise is that countries can address problems collectively rather than relying only on military strength or the decisions of the most powerful states.

Cooperation collides with national control

The principle at the centre of that promise is multilateralism: countries sharing responsibility for challenges that cross borders. Climate change, pandemics and artificial intelligence are among the issues that no government can fully manage alone. Yet the international system was designed for an earlier period, before such problems became so prominent.

Many governments support cooperation in principle while also insisting that their sovereignty must remain protected. Speeches from countries including North Korea and the Marshall Islands illustrated that contradiction. States want an equal voice in decisions affecting them, but they also fear outside interference, domination or the loss of control over national policy.

That conflict is particularly visible in the United States, where President Donald Trump has taken an openly confrontational approach to the UN. In American political culture, international institutions can be portrayed as threats to national independence and individual liberty. Other countries, especially those with histories of invasion, war or foreign control, share some of that concern.

At the same time, the practical case for collaboration is becoming harder to dismiss. Countries with limited resources cannot independently address rising temperatures or the rapid development of AI. The article reported that cooperation on AI featured prominently in this year’s discussions, although China and others also stressed that governments should retain the right to determine their own approaches.

The demand for a stronger collective system has grown since the COVID-19 pandemic, when many diplomatic meetings moved online. Island states have been especially forceful. They argue that decisions made by larger powers can determine their future while giving them too little influence over the choices involved. Rising seas and warming oceans make this imbalance an existential concern rather than merely a diplomatic grievance.

Pressure to change the Security Council

The strongest criticism is directed at the UN Security Council, the body with the organisation’s decisive authority. Five countries—the United States, Russia, Britain, China and France—have held permanent seats since the council was established. Each can block a decision with a veto, while the other members serve rotating terms and cannot prevent one.

For many governments, that arrangement no longer reflects the distribution of population, political importance or vulnerability in the modern world. The permanent members received their privileged status at the end of the Second World War; critics say the structure has remained largely frozen while global challenges and power relationships have changed.

Small island countries are seeking a lasting presence on the council, arguing that their exposure to climate change should give them a permanent voice in decisions affecting international security. The Solomon Islands’ prime minister, Matthew Wale, called the veto outdated. Chilean President José Antonio Kast also argued that countries should not continue operating under rules designed for 1945.

African governments have made a similar case for permanent representation. Africa currently has three rotating council seats, but its leaders want two permanent positions, including veto rights. Republic of Congo Foreign Minister Constant-Serge Bounda said the continent should not remain excluded from decisions that shape its future.

From speeches to results

The complaints do not amount to a rejection of the UN itself. Speakers continued to endorse the organisation’s ideal of nations working together and treating countries as political equals. Their frustration is directed at the distance between that ideal and the institution’s performance.

The repeated demand was therefore not simply for more debate. Governments want reforms that give smaller states and under-represented regions greater influence, while preserving the ability to respond effectively to international crises.

As reported by The Independent, the final impression from the gathering was that approval of the UN’s purpose is no longer enough. Many leaders believe the organisation must demonstrate that cooperation can produce decisions and practical results, rather than another round of declarations about the need for them.