The 80th UNGA is in progress, and the eyes of the world are turned to the world body to see what the world leaders have in mind to work for peace, development and human rights.
When the United Nations was founded in 1945, it was given a simple but profound mandate: to prevent war, to protect human rights, and to give a voice to the peoples of the world when the din of national ambition threatened them. Eighty years on, the UN’s promises remain enshrined in lofty charters and innumerable resolutions — yet the organization’s moral authority is fraying at precisely the moments when it is needed most. The 80th UN General Assembly must stop treating great-power sensitivities and political convenience as superior to human life. It must remember that the UN’s gravest failure would not be impotence on paper, but silence in the face of mass atrocity.
This year’s High-Level Week opens under the theme “Better Together: 80 years and more for peace, development and human rights.” The theme is noble; the test is whether member states will honor it by speaking truth to power. A fearful UN — one that sanitizes or muffles its judgments to avoid offending influential states — betrays the very purpose of its existence. When the organization bows to geopolitical calculation rather than the protection of civilians, it hands the world back to the rule of the few: the strong, the strategic, and the unscrupulous.
Look at the crises that demand the General Assembly’s moral clarity. Human-rights experts have warned repeatedly that the situation in Gaza has crossed thresholds of calamity that many describe in the language of genocide and famine — a charge that calls for urgent international action and accountability. Medical and humanitarian lifelines are collapsing; civilian death tolls and displacement have been catastrophic. The UN system cannot shrink from naming what it sees or from demanding an immediate, sustained cessation of actions that produce mass civilian suffering. To hesitate over terminology while people starve and die is to prioritize diplomatic comfort over human rescue.
If the UN is to reclaim its conscience, it must also break the dangerous pattern that has allowed atrocity to metastasize elsewhere: in Ethiopia’s Tigray and other regions where civilians remain trapped in cycles of violence and deprivation; in Sudan, where war and siege have produced famine conditions in Darfur and beyond; and in Myanmar, where the Rohingya and other minorities continue to face persecution and displacement. The High Commissioner for Human Rights has warned that the “rules of war are being shredded” in multiple theaters — a stark indictment that should galvanize the Assembly to act, not to prevaricate.
To be clear: the General Assembly is not being asked to play imperial arbiter. It is being asked to do what only it can do when the Security Council is paralyzed by vetoes and narrow national interest: to voice the conscience of the world, to convene humanitarian responses, to establish investigative mechanisms, and to rally both political and material support for ceasefires, safe corridors, and accountability. When the Security Council cannot or will not act, history has shown that the Assembly can and must step forward. Its authority rests not on coercive force but on moral legitimacy: a collective assertion that the world’s peoples will not be abandoned. The Assembly must wield that legitimacy.
Member states, too, have duties that cannot be deferred to diplomatic technocrats. Powerful countries must stop treating the UN as optional when its decisions conflict with narrow strategic aims. They must stop weaponizing influence — or shielding allies — to prevent independent investigations or humanitarian access. They must fund the UN adequately and support its impartial experts rather than delegitimizing them for political convenience. When states treat multilateralism as a bargaining chip rather than a sacred public good, they starve the institution of the very legitimacy that enables global cooperation. The result is a slow-motion disintegration of a system designed to protect the weak from the will of the strong.
The stakes are existential. When the UN’s capacity to act is eroded, the world drifts toward a brutal logic: might makes right. That is not merely rhetorical alarmism. It is a practical description of a world in which small or powerless populations are left vulnerable to predation by stronger neighbors, militia, or states that feel unconstrained by international restraint. The alternative — a rearmament of diplomacy, an insistence on accountability, and a robust humanitarian response — requires political courage. It requires member states to set aside immediate advantage and to serve the longer, higher interest of humanity. The Assembly must demand that courage.
At the heart of this revival should be concrete measures. The General Assembly should immediately mandate independent fact-finding missions where access is denied and atrocity crimes are alleged. It should empower and resource special rapporteurs and investigative tribunals with clear terms of reference and protection against political harassment. It should make humanitarian corridors and ceasefires a non-negotiable priority, tying development and diplomatic incentives to demonstrable protections for civilians. And crucially, it should adopt a standing mechanism to coordinate international relief when the Security Council is blocked — not to bypass the Council permanently, but to prevent paralysis when lives hang in the balance. These are not quixotic ideas; they are institutional repairs that recognize the Assembly’s unique convening power.
The UN’s critics are right to demand reform. The Security Council’s veto culture, the underfunding of peacekeeping, and the sometimes opaque functioning of UN agencies all need overhaul. But reform cannot be an excuse for inaction. The General Assembly should treat reform and rescue as simultaneous priorities: fix the system while using what authority the system still retains to stop ongoing crimes and to protect civilians now.
Finally, a word to citizens and civil society: the UN will be as fearless as the members who demand it be fearless. Public pressure — sustained, vocal, and transnational — matters. Civil society groups, journalists, and ordinary citizens must push their governments to put principled action ahead of convenience. When the people insist, governments often follow.
The 80th General Assembly could be remembered as another ritual of speeches and photo-ops. Or it can be remembered as the moment when the world chose to revive the UN’s founding promise: to protect succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to affirm human dignity, and to hold those who commit atrocities to account. The choice is simple and terrible: retreat into a jungle of raw power, or recommit to law, rights, and the human interest the UN was created to serve. The Assembly’s answer will shape the century to come. The world will be watching.
Be the first to comment