Opinion: The 80th UNGA is a Desperate Plea for Unity

On Tuesday (23 September), the high-level General Debates opened at the 80th UN General Assembly in New York under the theme “Better together: 80 years and more for peace, development and human rights.” The title may sound uplifting, almost celebratory, but beneath the polished words lies a chilling undertone: a desperate plea for unity. The General Debates unfold during a time when the world order faces multiple challenges: global conflicts at their highest level since World War II, genocide and famine in Gaza, humanitarian crises in Sudan and Yemen, a grinding war in Ukraine, bombings in the Middle East, accelerating climate breakdown, deep cuts to international aid and among many others a dangerous surge in human rights and international law violations.

Wars and crises defining the moment

By supporting Israel’s bombings across the Middle East and its genocide in Gaza, the West has shredded the credibility of the “rules based” order it purports to lead. Some European countries have recognised the statehood of Palestine ahead or during the UNGA, further isolating Israel and its closest ally, the United States. However, while recognition is a step in the right direction, Ivana Kottasová notes in her article for CNN that “recognition does not change the reality on the ground.” On paper, the UN and these states envision a future Palestine consisting of East Jerusalem, the occupied West Bank, and Gaza. In reality, that vision is collapsing.

The International Organization for Migration stated in April 2025 that 90% of homes in Gaza are destroyed or damaged, and much of the infrastructure including schools, hospitals, universities, water and sanitation networks, roads, government offices, cultural centres, and places of worship, have been reduced to rubble, stripping the society of the very institutions it needs to function. East Jerusalem has long been annexed by Israel while the West Bank resembles a set of small islands divided by Israeli illegal settlements and cut off from each other by checkpoints controlled by the Israel military. In addition, an independent United Nations inquiry has recently concluded that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel’s war in Gaza has claimed the lives of at least 70,000 Palestinians, with thousands of civilians still unaccounted for under collapsed buildings. Thousands of children have been left orphaned; many people have been left mutilated, and at least 400 civilians have died due to malnutrition after Israel’s blockade on humanitarian aid.

During the General Debates, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President of Chile Gabriel Boric, Colombian President Gustavo Petro, French President Emmanuel Macron, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, and Jordan’s King Abdullah II all used their speeches to demand a ceasefire in Gaza and an end to the killing of Palestinians. Whether their plea, alongside the recent wave of recognitions of Palestinian statehood, will translate into meaningful action remains uncertain.

In Sudan and Yemen, humanitarian crises deepen, receiving a fraction of global attention despite the millions displaced and at risk of starvation. Sudan has been plunged into a civil war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces since April 2023. More than 10 million people have been displaced, and according to the UN more than 25 million people are suffering from violence, food insecurity and are in dire need of humanitarian aid in Sudan. In Yemen, after 10 years of conflict an estimated 14 per cent of the population is currently displaced and more than 18.2 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance. Tens of thousands are already living in famine-like conditions and five million more are acutely food insecure.

Russia’s relentless war in Ukraine continues to terrorise civilians. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy argued in his speech at the UNGA on Wednesday (24 September) that “even during bloodshed, there isn’t a single international institution that can truly stop it. That’s how weak these institutions have become. What can Sudan, or Somalia, or Palestine, or any other people living through war, really expect from the UN or the global system? For decades, just statements and statements.”  The harsh reality is that if countries do not uphold the international laws, international institutions cannot effectively maintain the world order. The credibility of the multilateral system rests not on simple rhetoric but on the willingness of states to enforce the rules they claim to defend.

Systemic threats: climate and erosion of aid

Beyond wars, structural challenges are eroding the very foundations of global stability. Climate change stands as one of humanity’s greatest existential threats, yet some world leaders still deny its reality. The crisis is already here, driving food insecurity, mass migration, and increasingly violent weather patterns that fall hardest on the Global South, the very regions that have contributed the least to global warming. There is no denying the link: wars and the accelerating militarisation of our world go hand in hand with rising global emissions. As South African President Cyril Ramaphosa reminded the UNGA on Tuesday (23 September), “We must act decisively to silence all guns, everywhere, to realise the goal of sustainable development and global peace.” Yet instead of scaling up cooperation to decrease the risks of climate change, many states are cutting back. Financial aid budgets shrink, leaving humanitarian agencies overstretched and underfunded.

The retreat is most striking in the United States, where recent cuts to USAID and other foreign assistance programmes have stripped vulnerable communities of critical lifelines. For countries in the Global South, already bearing the brunt of rising temperatures, droughts, and floods, this withdrawal is nothing short of devastating. It signals not only a failure of solidarity, but a betrayal of responsibility by those most historically accountable for greenhouse gas emissions. The US may be retreating from its support for the UN, but this vacuum creates space for the countries hardest hit by climate change to rise as architects of a new global order. As Finnish President Alexander Stubb reminded the UNGA on Wednesday (24 September), a shifting dynamic is underway: “the balance of power [is moving] towards the South and East. Many countries, especially in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, are becoming or have become key players in determining the direction of the new world order.”

A crossroads moment

The theme “Better together” is, at its core, an appeal to countries’ shared humanity. Eighty years after its founding, the UN stands at a crossroads. The institution that once embodied post-war hope now struggles to uphold a fractured world order. Yet its warning should not be dismissed. The General Debates may not yield the breakthroughs urgently needed, but they serve as a stark reminder: without unity, peace, development, and human rights risk becoming empty words on fading UN banners. Today’s crises are deeply interconnected. They demand collective action, for, in President Zelensky’s words, “people are waiting for action.”

 Alexandra Dumitrescu is a Research Associate at LINKS Europe and commonspace.eu. Photo: UN General Assembly September 2025

 
The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)