UNGA 80 High-Level Week: Real progress or just old rhetoric?

The AnewZ Opinion section provides a platform for independent voices to share expert perspectives on global and regional issues. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent the official position of AnewZ

The 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly, held in New York in late September 2025, unfolded at a critical juncture for global governance. In an era marked by geopolitical rivalries, climate crises, uneven economic recovery, and public disillusionment with international institutions, the UN General Assembly retained its symbolic power as the world’s only universal diplomatic stage. The key question is whether UNGA 80 offered more than ritualistic speeches. Did it generate meaningful outcomes for multilateral diplomacy, and what conclusions can be drawn about the state of collective action today? In this brief, we seek to provide answers to those questions.

The first clear outcome was the affirmation of the UN’s convening power. Heads of state and government from around the world used the General Assembly’s platform to express national priorities and reaffirm the need for dialogue. While this may seem like mere symbolism, it is diplomatically significant. Without such common rituals, achieving even minimal consensus is difficult. The theme of “Better together: 80 years and more for peace, development and human rights” signaled that the institution still aspires to be the guardian of multilateral values. At a time when many observers proclaimed multilateralism dead, the act of convening was an achievement in itself.

Beyond symbolism, UNGA 80 produced concrete initiatives. One of the most notable was the launch of an Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence, accompanied by global dialogues on AI governance. This move acknowledged that new technologies cannot be left to unilateral regulation by great powers or corporations, and that multilateral oversight is essential for legitimacy. Similarly, high-level meetings on climate change, the Sustainable Development Goals, noncommunicable diseases, and migration reaffirmed areas where cooperation remains indispensable. Yet, while declarations abounded, most lacked binding commitments or financing mechanisms, revealing the persistent gap between rhetoric and implementation.

This credibility gap is one of the central conclusions from UNGA 80. Multilateral diplomacy continues to generate ambitious statements but often fails to provide concrete pathways for delivery. The Climate Summit, for example, produced renewed pledges on green technology and infrastructure but little clarity on how such projects would be financed for the long term. Development discussions highlighted the urgent need to reform global finance for the SDGs but without breakthrough agreements. The lesson is stark: unless multilateral diplomacy connects its declarations to enforceable funding and accountability structures, its legitimacy will erode further.

Historically, the UN Security Council was conceived as a “council of five sheriffs” able to guarantee peace through collective authority. But from the Korean War onward, the institution has struggled to function as intended, often paralyzed by Cold War rivalries and later by the divergent interests of its permanent members. The Ukraine war further exposed this paralysis, as Russia vetoed resolutions critical of its actions while the United States shielded Israel in other contexts. This selective use of veto power erodes the Council’s credibility and accelerates calls for a more representative, less exclusionary framework. Therefore, many leaders, including Turkey, Kazakhstan, Japan, Germany, and many other nations, urge imminent reform for the Security Council, adding the voices of nations from wider continents and incorporating the role of middle powers.

The General Assembly, in contrast, continues to offer a platform for universal participation, but its resolutions remain non-binding. The imbalance between the Assembly’s inclusivity and the Council’s exclusivity is now central to the crisis of multilateralism. Reform advocates argue that without structural change, the UN risks becoming a “bureaucratic fiction,” producing reports and convening summits that lack political impact. Yet others caution that even in its weakened state, the UN plays an essential role: legitimizing statehood, coordinating humanitarian relief, and crucially acting as a brake on the escalation of great-power conflict.

The lesson of UNGA 80, then, is twofold. First, the UN is facing its deepest legitimacy crisis, driven by both material pressures and political disenchantment. Second, despite its flaws, no alternative multilateral framework has emerged with comparable authority or universality. Even critics, including Donald Trump, prefer to demand reform rather than abolition. This contradiction suggests that multilateral diplomacy remains necessary but requires urgent renewal. The challenge is not merely procedural reform but a renegotiation of global power balances to reflect twenty-first-century realities. Until then, the UN will remain caught between symbolism and substance—indispensable yet increasingly fragile.

Great-Power rivalries and global south demands

Another significant outcome concerned institutional reform. The Secretariat presented proposals for reducing staff and pruning mandates to counteract “mandate creep.” Though modest, this signaled a recognition that overstretched institutions risk irrelevance. Calls for greater transparency in the upcoming Secretary-General selection also reflect demands for procedural legitimacy. These internal debates suggest that multilateral diplomacy is beginning to confront its own structural weaknesses. Reform, however slow, is now firmly on the agenda.

Yet UNGA 80 also underscored the stress points facing diplomacy in today’s fractured world. Great power tensions permeated the week. The United States, under an administration skeptical of multilateralism, declined to engage with several UN human rights mechanisms and even blocked the participation of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, raising legal and diplomatic controversy. China and Russia, for their part, emphasized sovereignty and alternative interpretations of multilateralism, often speaking past Western delegations. Meanwhile, Global South states used the platform to demand greater equity in development finance and representation. Rather than converging, these blocs revealed the fragmentation of international society.

Nevertheless, one should not dismiss the utility of such encounters. Even when states disagree, multilateral settings allow them to assess each other’s positions, explore potential alignments, and conduct side negotiations. Much of the diplomacy at UNGA occurs outside the Assembly hall in bilateral meetings, informal gatherings, and coalition-building efforts. The week served as an incubator for soft bargaining and diplomatic signaling, underscoring the continuing practical relevance of multilateral forums.

The outcomes of UNGA 80 suggest that multilateral diplomacy is neither obsolete nor fully effective. It remains a resilient space for convening, agenda-setting, and symbolic reaffirmation of norms. However, it is limited by the credibility gap between declarations and actions, the overburdening of institutions, and the reluctance of major powers to fully invest in the system. In this sense, multilateral diplomacy is at a crossroads.

Moving forward requires adaptation. Instead of seeking universal consensus on every issue, diplomacy may increasingly rely on flexible, issue-based coalitions known as “minilateralism” within a multilateral framework. Linking declarations to concrete financing and compliance mechanisms will be essential for restoring credibility. New arenas, such as artificial intelligence, demonstrate that multilateral institutions can still innovate by combining scientific expertise with political negotiation. Middle powers and regional organizations will also play a more significant role as brokers, especially when great powers are divided. Finally, renewing the narrative is critical: the case for multilateralism must be articulated not only in diplomatic halls but also in domestic political debates, where skepticism often arises.

The 80th UN General Assembly emphasized that multilateral diplomacy is at a historic crossroads: weakened by financial crises, veto paralysis, and geopolitical rivalry, yet still essential as the only universal forum for global dialogue. Its survival depends on bridging the gap between lofty declarations and concrete commitments, particularly in climate action, AI governance, and equitable development. The challenge for world leaders is not whether the UN can endure, but whether they will invest the political will to renew it. Without reform and accountability, multilateralism risks erosion; with them, it can emerge stronger and more relevant than ever.
 

Nurbolat NYSHANBAYEV is an Assistant Professor, PhD at the Higher School of International Relations and Diplomacy,  Turan University, specializing in international security, diplomacy, and the geopolitics of the Middle East and Greater Eurasia.

Almaty, Kazakhstan
 

Copied