Reflection, Reckoning, and Resolve at UNGA80

Last year’s Summit of the Future and resulting Pact for the Future mobilized Member States and diverse stakeholders to reimagine a UN and multilateral system fit for purpose in the 21st century. Yet developments in past months have tempered renewed optimism for the UN, giving way to doubt, cynicism, and nihilism. Of the myriad issues and dynamics casting this pall, three fault lines stand out in particular:

• The implications of the United States’ pivot to an “America First” foreign policy on the UN’s functioning and multilateral processes;
• The entrenched and worsening conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan, which have polarized and gridlocked the global community and underscore Security Council inaction; and
• Long-discussed and elusive UN reform, in which recent headway raises questions about the organization’s ability to reinvent itself.

In this moment of great uncertainty, dwindling political and financial commitment, and diminishing trust in the UN, this year’s UNGA theme—“Better together: 80 years and more for peace, development and human rights”—reminds the global community of the power and imperative of collective action. As Secretary-General António Guterres remarked at the opening of the general debate, the UN is not just a dream for perfection, but rather, a practical strategy for humanity’s survival.

Problem or Priority? The Changing Dynamics of the U.S.-UN Relationship

The atmosphere among Heads of State and Government was a bit tense ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump’s address to the UN General Assembly. The fact that he spoke directly after Brazilian President
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva—a long-term tradition at the UNGA—added to the sensitivity of the situation. Earlier this summer, the U.S. administration massively increased tariffs for Brazilian imports, because of the President’s disagreement with the treatment of Jair Bolsonaro, former leader of Brazil, in court. However, Trump and Lula da Silva had a short encounter at the UN and agreed to meet soon. A short conversation may not fully resolve bilateral tensions, but it demonstrates the unique value of the UN since the two of them might have never met otherwise.

A similar contrast became evident during and after President Trump’s address to the community of world leaders. In his speech, he questioned the value of the UN, emphasizing his and his administration’s mistrust and rejection of multilateral institutions. This has been reflected in numerous U.S. decisions since January, for example the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, public denouncement of the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals, and freeze of contributions to UN agencies. Yet in a meeting with Secretary-General Guterres, President Trump stated that the United States “…are behind the United Nations…” and that its potential is “incredible.”

It remains to be seen which of the two views will determine the U.S.–UN relation, since many are waiting for further steps from Washington. For months, the diplomatic community has been  speculating about the U.S. administration’s more far-reaching decisions to disengage, such as the suspension of U.S. assessed contributions to the UN budget (22 percent of the total budget) and the complete freeze of contributions to the UN peacekeeping missions (26.2 percent of the total peacekeeping budget). This—in combination with China’s late payments to the UN—would have a tremendous impact on the organization and its operational capacity.

War and Diplomacy: Navigating the Conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan

Although tasked with the maintenance of international peace and security, the UN Security Council has struggled to take decisive action on several conflicts across the globe, including the conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan. Widening geopolitical rifts and intensifying political polarization have effectively paralyzed the Council, as certain permanent members wield veto power to block resolutions (Russia on Ukraine and Sudan, and the U.S. on Gaza).

In the face of Security Council inaction, the General Assembly has stepped up, making efforts to unite the international community in ending conflicts. On 12 September, the General Assembly endorsed the New York Declaration on a Two-State Solution to the Israel-Palestine issue, passing with an overwhelming 142 votes in favor, 10 against, and 12 abstentions. Additional resolutions addressing immediate humanitarian concerns, such as a ceasefire in Gaza and the release of hostages, also gained significant support, with a June 2025 resolution passing with 149 votes in favor. Ahead of and during UNGA80, several notable countries, including France, the UK, Canada, Australia, and smaller European states like Andorra, Belgium, and Luxembourg, recognized Palestinian statehood. Each recognition by a major Western state carries significant symbolic weight.

On 24 February, marking three years since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the General Assembly adopted two contrasting resolutions. One, co-sponsored by Ukraine and European nations, demanded Russia's unconditional withdrawal and reaffirmed Ukraine's sovereignty, passing with 93 votes in favor, 18 against, and 65 abstentions. The U.S. introduced a less explicit resolution, with delegates abstaining or voting against versions depending on amendments. This shift signals a worrying decline in international consensus compared to earlier years, when similar resolutions received about 140 votes in favor.

Yet the longer they persist, ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza are intensifying divisions among member states, revealing key areas of contention:

• Wording and framing: While broad principles, such as sovereignty and humanitarian needs, find common ground, states often disagree on specific language. For instance, during voting on Ukraine, the U.S. avoided directly labelling Russia as the aggressor, leading countries like India and China to abstain.
• Rising abstentions: More countries, particularly in the G77, are abstaining from votes rather than take a definitive stance. India exemplifies this careful diplomatic navigation.
• Humanitarian needs vs. Sovereignty norms: In Gaza, humanitarian access is prioritized, while in Ukraine, principles of territorial integrity are emphasized. This creates conflict, as some advocate for humanitarian relief first, while others cite the principle of non-interference.
• Geopolitical pressures: Nations near conflict zones or tied to major players adjust their votes to maintain diplomatic relationships. Those in the G77 weigh these decisions against trade and military interests.

For more than two years, the war in Sudan has raged on, triggering a large-scale humanitarian and displacement crisis. Similar to Ukraine and Gaza, diverging positions on key issues are fuelling inaction on Sudan:

• Ceasefire and humanitarian access: Russia has vetoed Security Council resolutions advocating for immediate ceasefires and enhanced humanitarian aid, such as a UK/Sierra Leone-led resolution in November 2024. African Council members, in particular, support these calls.
• ICJ jurisdiction issues: The International Court of Justice dismissed Sudan’s case against the UAE for allegedly supplying weapons to groups committing genocide in Darfur, limiting Sudan's legal avenues and raising concerns about international legal accountability.
• Humanitarian access vs. sovereignty: There is a push for unfettered humanitarian access and ceasefires, but Sudan's government stresses sovereignty and non-interference. Vetoes, especially by Russia, often cite sovereignty concerns.
• Key pending issues: The General Assembly needs to strengthen arms embargoes or sanctions against those who support the Rapid Support Forces. Further, there is a need to consider including terms like "genocide" in the language of accountability. Countries should also commit to establishing humanitarian corridors and ensuring the protection of civilians.

UN Reform: Time to Act with Ambition and Common Purpose

UN80 is a multi-year reform initiative launched by the Secretary-General in March 2025 in the context of growing political and financial uncertainty. It seeks to make the UN more fit for purpose, efficient, and effective through three main workstreams: 1) efficiencies and management improvements; 2) Mandate Implementation Review; and 3) programmatic restructuring.

The plan comes amid the most severe liquidity crisis faced by the UN in its history; however the Secretary-General emphasizes that the reform initiative does not aim to address the financial crisis, but rather to optimize the UN system. The optics and timing of the plan prompted concern that proposals may be rather reactionary and lacking a long-term, strategic vision. The extent to which Member States have thus far provided input into defining priorities for reform has also been a point of concern. The Secretary-General nonetheless announced the final revised 2026 budget estimates during the UNGA, aligned to workstream 1. He emphasized that the nearly $500 million in reductions—amounting to 15% of resources compared to 2025, alongside a 13% reduction in posts funded under the support account for peacekeeping—as proposed by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) seeks to strengthen accountability, improve delivery, and cut costs. This message was echoed in a letter from the Secretary-General to UN staff, dated 15 September 2025, speaking frankly about impending implications of UN80 for staff.

On workstream 2, the General Assembly established an informal ad-hoc working group to consider how to address issues of duplication and complexity across UN mandates. Co-chaired by New Zealand and Jamaicia, the group held its first meeting on 16th September, in advance of the UNGA. The mandate review process is likely to raise political questions regarding Member States interests in specific UN agencies, as was previously a point of contention during reforms under Kofi Annan’s Secretary-General term.

On workstream 3, major discussions are underway on streamlining the UN. Initial proposals regarding staff relocations to lower-cost duty stations outside of New York, programme realignments, and abolishment of senior posts and “consolidation of staffing layers” have elicited angry responses from UN staff and civil society. A progress report on 18 September narrowed in on substantial reorganization within the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA) and the Department of Peace Operations (DPO). Critically, the proposed consolidation of peacekeeping missions and capacities to protect civilians could translate into shrinking operational capacities on the ground in places where the UN is needed the most.

During UNGA, nearly all Member States that made reference to UN reforms expressed their support. However, the crux of reforms from the perspective of developing countries continues to be at the level of the UN Security Council. Member States will need more time to formulate positions as details on UN80 emerge.

The ACABQ will review the 2026 budget proposals and provide recommendations to the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee, where all 193 Member States will negotiate a final decision, expected by December. If adopted, the changes would begin taking effect in 2026.

Better Together: The UN’s North Star through the Mire

In their addresses, Member States told a tale of two UNs: one lauded for its wide-ranging achievements, from peacekeeping to life-saving vaccines, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to development gains; and the other lambasted for its inability to act with the urgency needed to counter a rising tide of threats.

That said, Member States still overwhelmingly view the United Nations as indispensable, despite its shortcomings. As India noted, the UN remains the only forum where countries meet as sovereign equals. Referring to the UN as the “proverbial town square in our modern global village,” Ghana urged Member States to protect this space for multilateral dialogue and cooperation. Others stressed the vital importance of the UN to solving global challenges, with Portugal remarking that no alternative framework could be as effective.

For a world so divided, there remains considerable agreement as to how the UN can course-correct at this critical juncture. To start, the voices of the so-called Global South must be heard for the United Nations to be truly relevant and effective in the 21st century. Leaders from across Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia, and small island countries called for accelerated implementation of and scaled-up financing for the stalling 2030 Agenda, and in particular, reform of the international financial architecture. Contrary to claims made earlier in the week by the United States, many Member States testified to the devastating consequences of climate change on the lives and livelihoods of their people, underscoring the need for greater climate action and support from top-emitting countries. While artificial intelligence (AI) and emerging technologies were widely recognized as a potential force for good, Member States stressed the need for inclusive governance to ensure the digital divide widens. Lastly, the lack of representation of G77 countries on the Security Council was also a common refrain; as Saint Kitts and Nevis noted, “those who suffer the sharpest edges of insecurity must have a seat at the table where peace is forged.”

Moreover, Member States must recommit to—and uphold—the founding principles of the UN Charter to ensure a multilateral system for the betterment of all.  In an era of intensifying geopolitical competition, Member States voiced concern for the return of “might makes right” and the “law of the jungle,” where the powerful few can act with impunity, trample international law, and undermine human rights to advance self-interests. In lieu of opportunism, Finland advocated for a common understanding of fundamental values, including the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nation-states, the prohibition of the use of force, and respect for human rights. Dominica called for respect and adherence to the rules-based order, drawing attention to the plight of the global majority who keenly feel the brunt of great power rivalry.

Conclusion

Eight decades since its creation, the UN stands at a precipice. In a world rife with fragmentation, conflict, inequality, climate change, and more, the founding spirit that once galvanized the international community to forge a better world wanes steadily. This year’s UNGA theme of “Better together” serves as a rallying call for renewed commitment to multilateralism at a time when everything is at stake.

As the UN enters its next decade, one thing remains clear: change is needed.  Going into UNGA80, the international community was aware of the challenges impacting international cooperation in the current circumstances, and there was broad consensus that the UN system must become more effective, efficient, and representative. Yet, there was no sign that Member States have given up on multilateralism. Rather, a vast majority of countries—in particular, small- and medium-sized countries—understand that an effective and efficient rules-based multilateral order is in their interest. These committed countries are trying to find ways to move forward in specific areas, instead of giving in to geopolitical gridlock. Thus, there remains strong will to persevere the multilateral system. This will require new partnerships and overcoming historical divisions.

As an advocate for multilateralism, Germany stands to play a constructive role in helping the organization navigate this period of reflection and transformation. President of the 80th General Assembly (and former German Foreign Minister) Annalena Baerbock has a unique opportunity to act as an honest broker, building trust and consensus among Member States, and ensuring the UN delivers for the people. Germany’s bid for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council in 2027-2028—premised on justice, peace, and respect—promises a return to and strengthening of the UN’s founding principles. Lastly, Germany (and the European Union more broadly) can serve as reliable and predictable partners, helping to bridge North-South divides in a spirit of solidarity.