As global leaders gather in New York for the United Nations’ 80th anniversary, they must acknowledge a stark reality: conflict and lawlessness, rather than harmony and collaboration, are currently advancing.
The U.N. was established with the goal of “shielding future generations from the devastation of war,” yet by 2025, the number of armed conflicts has surpassed any period since 1945. These situations represent not only humanitarian crises but also critical political dilemmas. Globally, international relations are increasingly characterized by division and rivalry, a sharp contrast to the solidarity and collective effort implied by this year’s U.N. theme, “Building our Future Together.”
The discussion regarding appropriate actions is centered around three distinct viewpoints. Regrettably, these perspectives consistently lead us toward opposing paths.
International Diplomacy’s Fragmentation
Initially, the U.N. framework is focusing on administrative changes to enhance effectiveness. Suggestions include consolidating agencies, scaling back responsibilities, and cutting staff numbers. While valuable, these efforts are piecemeal.
Concurrently, the U.S. administration and certain allies have deemed various components of the U.N. system unacceptable. The Trump Administration has been pulling out of organizations such as the (WHO), rejecting deals designed to safeguard the , disputing the U.N.’s role in , and significantly cutting financial support for the aid infrastructure. Such actions, which destabilize global diplomacy, foster a cycle of self-protection and ineffectiveness.
The third major viewpoint became apparent in earlier this month. President Xi asserted China’s position as a cornerstone of the multilateral framework, yet simultaneously welcomed leaders from Russia and North Korea, who openly disregard international norms.
These developments provide no solace for individuals in Sudan, Gaza, or Ukraine, who see U.N. intervention as their final resort. With over three-quarters of 2025 elapsed, the international assistance required for Sudan, which is the planet’s most severe humanitarian emergency, impacting . Rhetoric is plentiful but often lacking: the Sudanese crisis garnered only eight mentions across roughly 16,000 words delivered by Permanent Members of the Security Council during last year’s General Assembly discussion.
Furthermore, the U.N. has fallen short in addressing urgent global dangers. Secretary General Guterres’ proposal for a treaty on has failed to materialize. Funding for pandemic readiness has reverted to pre-COVID levels.
Having recently returned from Sudan, I personally observed the repercussions of halted mediation attempts and insufficient joint humanitarian aid initiatives: the conflict in Sudan is expanding, drawing in an increasing number of adjacent nations.
The Core Purpose of the U.N.
During a period when governments seem either incapable or disinclined to collaborate on significant issues, we should draw encouragement from the initial declaration of the : “We the peoples of the United Nations.”
That foundational document outlined the entitlements of nations within international legal frameworks, while also articulating a pledge to advance and safeguard fundamental human rights. Presently, the ethical standing intended to stem from the U.N.’s dedication to humanity risks erosion due to the misuse of veto privileges, administrative inertia, pullbacks, reductions in aid, and political concessions. It is imperative that we re-center individuals, specifically civil society, within the multilateral framework.
The U.N. mirrors the political landscapes of its member nations. The current peril is that self-serving national agendas impede the resolution of authentic challenges and the development of remedies. An area where the U.N. possesses clear jurisdiction, and where advancement ought to be achievable, involves the allocation, purpose, distribution, and financing of humanitarian aid. Civil society has been propelling solutions forward, even amidst political stalemates. Moreover, while addressing the immediate consequences of conflict does not replace confronting its fundamental causes, it is crucial given the sharp increase in conflicts observed today.
A salient illustration involves the pressing matter of famine and humanitarian emergencies in Sudan and Gaza. Approximately 45 million children are impacted in areas like these. Currently, starvation ranks among the primary drivers of death for children under five globally. Nevertheless, the existing system for treatment and provision is needlessly divided, involving two U.N. organizations (UNICEF and World Food Programme), employing distinct items (Ready to Use Therapeutic Food and ready to Use Supplementary Food) to address severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) in separate approaches. Overall, we calculate that roughly 80% of severely undernourished children in conflict zones receive no assistance from this intricate framework.
Across the Sahel and the Horn of Africa, regions where climatic disruptions and conflict intersect, the IRC is addressing severe malnutrition at the local level through a streamlined, unified methodology for managing both severe and moderate acute malnutrition, reducing intervention expenses by as much as 30%. Implemented worldwide, this approach could enable millions more children to receive care using the identical resources. Such interventions are transformative and replicable, showcasing the potential when civil society is empowered, rather than restricted, by the aid framework.
Immunization offers a further instance. The , collaborating with GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance, has administered more than 20 million vaccine doses to unimmunized and under-immunized children in the most inaccessible regions across four East African nations. This was achieved via a localized strategy effective in conflict areas, by engaging with warring factions instead of overlooking them. Each vaccine dose costs a mere $4. When REACH was initiated in 2022, humanitarian organizations could only access 16% of the more than 150 designated communities. Through negotiations for access, this percentage has now reached 96%. The GAVI framework serves as an excellent illustration of how civil society, backed by the private sector, the U.N., and dedicated governments, can provide critical interventions broadly in communities ensnared by deteriorating humanitarian emergencies.
Civil society does not possess a miraculous solution. However, it is capable of managing the repercussions of political breakdowns and advocating for corrective measures. This explains why, as the U.N. commemorates its 80th year, Pascal Lamy, the former Director-General of the World Trade Organization, has called for “plurilateral” engagement, encompassing not only sovereign states but also civil society and the corporate sector.
What is required are both financial means and political endorsement. Given that humanity now possesses greater capacity for positive action than at any prior point, we, the populace, must be prepared to act.
The United Nations represents a magnificent concept. It boasts an inspiring mandate. Its imperative now is to realize this mission.