The UN at 80: an institution under pressure in a multipolar age
New York’s diplomats will soon reconvene in a familiar ritual of speeches, side meetings and cocktail receptions. But this year the atmosphere at the UN feels different — thinned by budget lines, sharpened by geopolitics and shadowed by hunger. As Secretary‑General António Guterres put it plainly this month: “We are gathering in turbulent, even unchartered waters.”
- Advertisement -
That phrase captures why the United Nations’ 80th General Assembly resembles less of a celebration than a stress test. Large parts of the world are convulsed by war and famine, the Security Council is frozen by vetoes, and the organisation’s finances are fraying as its largest benefactors withhold or delay payments. The question many diplomats whisper over coffee is not whether the UN will continue to exist a year from now, but whether it can still do what it was set up to do.
Funding crunch and the Trump effect
Few developments have been as destabilising as the sudden retrenchment of the United States. Once the engine of UN funding — providing nearly a quarter of the organisation’s assessed budget and a similar share of peacekeeping and humanitarian financing — Washington’s cuts and arrears have sent shockwaves through agencies that deliver food, vaccines and emergency relief.
The Trump administration’s prior withdrawals from the World Health Organization, UNESCO and the Human Rights Council crystallised a broader tilt toward transactional multilateralism. Now, with the White House signaling deep scepticism of “woke” agendas and pressing an “America First” posture, diplomats are braced for a tone that could further weaken support for collective action.
It isn’t just Washington. China and Russia have been similarly tardy with payments, and many European governments are diverting aid budgets toward defence as they confront renewed concerns about territorial security. The result: a UN Secretariat forced into austerity — job cuts, programme suspensions and the relocation of staff from Geneva and New York to cheaper hubs such as Nairobi.
“The organisation will have to do less with less,” one senior envoy said privately. For an institution predicated on international pooling of resources, those three words are an existential diagnosis.
Palestine, visas and the limits of diplomacy
This year’s Assembly is also a focal point for a tectonic shift in diplomatic recognition. A cluster of Western countries — notably France, Canada and the UK — are poised to recognise Palestinian statehood, joining more than 140 UN members that already do so. If those pledges materialise, the four permanent members of the Security Council that recognise Palestine will outnumber the lone holdout: the United States.
That diplomatic turn has collided with an awkward legal and political standoff in New York. The US State Department’s decision to block visas for certain Palestinian officials — citing national security — exposed the brittle relationship between Washington and the UN headquarters agreement, which traditionally obliges the host country to grant access for UN business. For a moment, diplomats even discussed moving the Assembly session elsewhere; the idea echoes a 1988 precedent when Yasser Arafat was denied entry and delegates met in Geneva.
“UN headquarters is an integral part of the city of New York but for it to work, we need the headquarters agreement fully implemented,” Stéphane Dujarric, spokesman for the Secretary‑General, said as tensions mounted.
War, famine and a paralysed Security Council
There is more armed conflict in the world today than at any time since 1945, according to UN assessments. Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan — each a theatre of political and human catastrophe — dominate this year’s agenda, but with little hope of Security Council breakthroughs. The US has repeatedly blocked council action on Gaza; Russia has done the same on Ukraine. That stalemate is not a technical failure. It lays bare how the victors of 1945 still hold vetoes in a much-changed world.
Famine declarations in Gaza and Sudan have sharpened the moral stakes. Last week, the UN‑backed PACI and other agencies warned of escalating civilian slaughter and large‑scale ethnic violence in Sudan, while integrated food security assessments labelled Gaza in famine. Yet when calls for ceasefires and humanitarian corridors reached the Security Council, political rivalries often displaced urgent relief.
What happens when the body meant to prevent war is itself paralysed by the politics of great powers? That is the question many delegates will ask this week, and the one that has pushed smaller states to seek alternative venues and alliances.
Reform, succession and a shifting world order
As it marks eight decades, the UN faces pressures both structural and symbolic. The Security Council’s permanent seats reflect a 1945 map that no longer matches 21st‑century demographics and economic realities. Calls to add African, Indian and Latin American permanent members are familiar, but meaningful reform has repeatedly stalled.
Last year’s Pact of the Future promised a roadmap of change, from Security Council reform to regulation of artificial intelligence. The initial fanfare, however, collided with the hard arithmetic of budgets and political priorities. “It is now a pact of a bygone era,” analyst Richard Gowan said — a politely brutal assessment of high‑minded commitments that lack fiscal follow‑through.
Another consequential process is already underway: the selection of the next Secretary‑General in 2026. António Guterres leaves behind a record of outspoken warnings about climate and conflict, and his successor will inherit an organisation strapped for cash and credibility. For years there has been a push — inside and outside the UN — for a female Secretary‑General. Whether that breakthrough will coincide with a geopolitical moment in which the United States and other traditional powers assert different priorities remains to be seen.
What kind of UN do we want?
The 80th Assembly is an inflection point more than a finish line. The world that convenes in Manhattan — leaders from bustling capitals, ministers hurrying between bilaterals, activists pressing for more humane policies — reflects a complex reality: international cooperation remains indispensable, yet the mechanisms to deliver it are fraying.
Can a multilateral system built by the victors of a global war be adapted to a multipolar age where regional pacts, private power and nationalist politics often outpace collective institutions? If the UN shrinks or mutates, who picks up the tasks it can no longer afford — feeding the hungry, policing ceasefires, coordinating pandemic responses?
These are not academic questions. They are, in the words of a long‑time UN official, “the practical politics of survival” — for institutions and for millions of people who rely on them.
By Abdiwahab Ahmed
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
