COMMENTRIES

Home PUBLICATIONS COMMENTRIES
79th UN General Assembly: Global Challenges and  Multilateral Cooperation

79th UN General Assembly: Global Challenges and  Multilateral Cooperation

26 June 2025, NIICE Commentary 11361 Ruvika Pradhan  A Vital component of the UN system, the UNGA facilitates discussion and cooperation among countries by allowing them to voice their perspectives, share best practices, and provide resolutions on pressing global challenges. On an annual basis, the UNGA is co-convened via debates, plenary sessions, interactive dialogues, resolution sessions, and high-level meetings in the presence of international leaders. In dire need of global cooperation, the 79th UNGA brought together diplomatic representatives, government officials, advocates, and activists from 193 countries to harness the power of multilateralism and global diplomacy to address a range of critical issues collectively. It officially opened on September 10, 2024. H.E. Mr. Philemon Yang from Cameroon was elected as the president of the UNGA, taking over the proceedings for the 79th session. This session of the UNGA was convened in New York. The session featured the General Debate, the Summit of the Future, and high-level meetings on climate action. Representatives from 193 member states gathered to address critical global issues ranging from climate change to international security.  The theme was "Leaving No One Behind: Acting Together for the Advancement of Peace, Sustainable Development, and Human Dignity for Present and Future Generations", emphasising a commitment to inclusivity and collective action in addressing global challenges. Other key themes of the session were categorised into the Summit of the Future and high-level meetings that discussed two existential issues: antimicrobial resistance and the global threat of rising sea levels. The General Debate addressed diverse topics such as climate change, all under the theme "Leaving No One Behind: Acting Together for the Advancement of Peace, Sustainable Development, and Human Dignity for Present and Future Generations." Additionally, the importance of multilateralism was a recurring theme. Leaders emphasised the need for global solidarity and collective action to effectively address shared challenges such as climate change, health crises, and security threats. The General Debate concluded with a call for concrete commitments and actions. Member States were urged to transform discussions into policies that promote inclusivity and sustainable development.  Key Outcomes The 79th General Debate produced significant commitments to strengthen global cooperation and address pressing challenges.  During the sessions in the general debate, the agendas emphasised topics from supporting vulnerable nations in the Global South through climate financing and technology transition to discussing Global health emerging as a priority, with commitments to address antimicrobial resistance, enhance pandemic preparedness, and achieve universal health coverage. The assembly strengthened its commitment to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopting resolutions to increase social protection, education, and healthcare investment to address implementation gaps in poverty eradication and inequality reduction. A landmark achievement of this session was the Summit of the Future, which produced three crucial agreements. The Pact for the Future established and enhanced multilateral cooperation and reformed international financial architecture to support low-income countries. The Global Digital Compact created a framework for digital technology governance, addressing the digital divide and ensuring equitable access to technology. The Declaration on Future Generations formalised the rights of future generations and emphasised youth inclusion in political decision-making. On the other side of the General Debate, Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, called for global unity to achieve genuine peace for Ukraine, rejecting alternative plans that might prolong the conflict. President Zelenskyy highlighted the failure of the Security Council in dealing with the war, noting that “when the aggressor exercises veto power, the UN is powerless.”  The concluding session emphasised the need for ongoing dialogue and cooperation among member states. In a nutshell, the summit concluded with a collective pledge to implement inclusive policies that ensure human dignity and advance multilateral solutions to global challenges. Key Global Challenges Climate Change  The discussions at the climate action summits stressed the urgent need for action, especially since only 17% of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are on track, and one-third of the goals are moving in the wrong direction. The final remarks called for efforts to meet the global climate target of limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C, political support to foster collaborative climate action, and more transparency regarding climate commitments, particularly from the corporate sector and developed, industrialised nations. Human Rights Violation The discussion on human rights violations underscored the urgent need for legally binding instruments on the right to development. Representatives also highlighted the necessity for climate action, noting that climate repercussions have exacerbated the enjoyment of human rights globally. For instance, the representative of Venezuela condemned governments and heads of state for their immorality in portraying themselves as advocates of human rights while enacting policies that harm vulnerable and war-affected countries by blocking access to food, medical supplies, and technology. The Venezuelan representative called for a legally binding instrument to defend and protect the human rights system.  End to Genocide, Violence, and War The ongoing geopolitical and genocidal rivalry between Palestine-Israel, Russia-Ukraine, and Israel-Lebanon, and many other annexed nations, has depleted peace and security and is slowly paving the way for an all-out war. The victimised nations like Ukraine and Palestine have had to give up their long and tireless fight for freedom and social justice as huge uncertainty prevails amidst the call for war. On that note, the General Assembly addressed that nations must stop financing terrorism and should condemn the supply of military weapons and the exercise of brutal military power. Addressing Multipolarity The agenda of multipolarity and global governance was addressed on the basis of the evolving structure of the nature and attributes of the international power structure. The sessions on multipolarity also addressed the ways to camouflage and adapt to the current structure of global governance and the manoeuvring of the world to a multipolar reality, with power being decentralised rather than concentrated in a few dominant states. During the high-level debate, leaders stressed the need for a new, equitable global order to reflect the realities of a polarized world and called for reduced Western dominance. Different nations have been economically, politically, and culturally under western influence, leading to colonised sovereignty. With the help of a multipolar world, we can collectively address the most complex problems faced by humanity globally by taking into account each other’s interests and concerns. Leaders acknowledged that the West needs to refrain from its neocolonial practices of mining the entire world for its benefit. Additionally, leaders stressed the need for reformed international relations that seek to adjust with countries in a cooperative manner to form a multipolar world where each country is heard and where each country has a say. Global & Gender Inequality  Many delegates highlighted the need for a global order, equitable resource distribution, and global financial reform. The UNGA’s President noted the significance of multilateral cooperation in addressing global challenges like the climate crisis, poverty, and gender inequality. Philémon Yang, the President of the General Assembly, highlighted that 193 Member States participated; however, the disappointment was that only about 10% of the speakers were women. Furthermore, he emphasised the need for gender equality. Mélanie Joly, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Canada, stressed that the organisation is not perfect, but progress is possible. “For nearly 80 years, no woman has occupied the position of Secretary-General — this is unacceptable,” she continued, stating that the next leader of this illustrious institution must be a woman and expressing hope that delegates at the Assembly in 2025 will address the Madam President. “We, women, have the right to be equal in everything: education, employment, and every other opportunity,” she said. Looking Ahead The 79th UNGA set forth transformative initiatives that will shape international cooperation. With the implementation of new frameworks for digital governance and intergenerational equity it will ensure inclusive development and an egalitarian society. As the session concluded, it is hoped that the upcoming climate action initiatives will accelerate with increased support for vulnerable nations, while reforms to global financial systems aim to better serve developing countries. The assembly strengthened multilateral approaches to conflict resolution and peacekeeping, alongside renewed commitments to human rights protection and gender equality. These outcomes mark significant steps toward more equitable global governance and cooperation. Conclusion In a nutshell, this year's session highlighted the importance of multilateral cooperation in addressing global challenges such as gender inequality, climate change, and poverty. Overall, the session highlighted the complex geopolitical tensions and the importance of cooperation to achieve peace and stability. The 79th UNGA marked a pivotal moment in international relations, setting the stage for transformed global governance. The agreements and commitments made during this session will influence international policy-making and cooperation for years to come. The assembly's outcomes signal a shift toward more inclusive and equitable global governance, albeit the real test lies in translating these commitments into concrete actions that benefit all nations and future generations. ...

The Myth of American Benevolence: Trump and the Unmasking of U.S. Foreign Policy

The Myth of American Benevolence: Trump and the Unmasking of U.S. Foreign Policy

25 June 2025, NIICE Commentary 11350 Abhimanyu Bhardwaj For decades, it has been believed—or at least vigorously propagated—that the United States functions as a global force for good. The narrative of American exceptionalism has served as the ideological backbone of U.S. foreign policy since the Second World War. As Charles Krauthammer asserted in Things That Matter, “If someone invades your house, you call the cops. Who do you call if someone invades your country? You dial Washington... In the unipolar world, the closest thing to a centralized authority, is America—American power.” In this view, the U.S. was not just a superpower, but a custodian of the liberal international order, wielding both soft and hard power under the guise of benevolent leadership. In essence, U.S. hegemony was justified not as dominance, but as moral responsibility. However, the emergence of Trumpism has exposed the underlying hypocrisy of this mythos. Far from being a rupture, Trump’s foreign policy represents a discursive shift rather than a strategic one. Washington’s longstanding practices of coercion and regime destabilization were no longer disguised in multilateral language. Instead, threats became explicit. Recently on his Truth Social platform, he infamously wrote: “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. We are not going to take him out (kill!)—at least not for now… Our patience is wearing thin.” Minutes later, he followed up with “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” Such rhetoric marks a shift from hegemonic subtlety to imperial bluntness. Yet, the global response to this shift has been largely mischaracterized. Analysts and commentators often interpret this phase as a deviation from the norm, when in fact it is a continuation of American hegemony, only without the pretense. The discomfort with Trump’s rhetoric stems not from a divergence in objectives but from the collapse of the moral framing that once legitimized those objectives. What is now perceived as American brazenness is not a new pathology but a long-concealed ethos now laid bare. The Myth of Benevolence: Origins and Persistence After the end of the Second World War, and more definitively following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States emerged as the uncontested hegemon in international politics—a position it sought not merely to occupy, but to justify through the moral language of benevolent hegemony. The transition from the Monroe Doctrine’s selective isolationism—which nonetheless included aggressive interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean—to the Truman Doctrine’s active internationalism marked a paradigmatic shift. No longer content with hemispheric dominance, the U.S. rebranded itself as the indispensable guarantor of a liberal world order. This was codified in its Cold War posture: to act as the global “policeman against communism”, shielding “free peoples” from the forces of totalitarianism. Whether it was military intervention in Korea (1950), the prolonged war in Vietnam (1955–1975), or the covert destabilisation of governments in Latin America, the United States consistently justified its actions as being in service of a greater global good. Later interventions followed the same template but adapted to new enemies: the Global War on Terror post-9/11, airstrikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan to the full-scale invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. Each of these operations was justified in the name of international security and democracy promotion. Yet, this belief system rests on a deeply selective historical memory and a well-calibrated machinery of soft power. American benevolence has been less a reality than a strategically cultivated myth, sustained through Hollywood narratives, public diplomacy, and an overwhelming dominance in global media discourse. As Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky famously argued, the U.S. has long relied on its ability to “manufacture consent”—not just domestically, but globally.  The Reality Behind the Rhetoric: A Legacy of Interference and Intervention U.S. foreign policy, far from being grounded in idealism or the spread of universal values, has consistently been guided by the imperatives of national self-interest and strategic dominance. While the rhetoric of democracy and freedom has remained central to its public diplomacy, American actions have often contradicted these lofty pronouncements. As political scientist Dov H. Levin meticulously documents, between 1946 and 2000, the U.S. engaged in at least 81 instances of electoral interference globally—ranging from covert funding of political parties to disinformation campaigns and more overt interventions. One of the most well-known examples of this interference was in Russia, where the U.S. played a decisive role in shaping the 1996 re-election of Boris Yeltsin. The manipulation was so overt that Time magazine ran a cover story hailing U.S. advisors who “saved” Russia’s democracy—oblivious to the irony of undermining democratic sovereignty in the name of democracy. At the same time, the United States has demonstrated an institutional inability to confront its own atrocities, both past and present. It remains the only country in history to have used nuclear weapons in war, targeting the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945—an act that resulted in the deaths of over 200,000 people, mostly non-combatants. American alliances have not been contingent upon human rights or democratic values, but upon strategic utility. The apartheid regime in South Africa, military dictatorships in Pakistan, and the occupation policies of Israel have all enjoyed unwavering American support, despite widespread international condemnation.  Perhaps one of the most chilling articulations of American disregard for accountability came in 1988, when the U.S. Navy cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655, a civilian passenger plane, killing all 290 people on board. In response, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush unapologetically stated, “I will never apologize for the United States. I don’t care what the facts are.” This chilling statement encapsulates the pathological confidence with which U.S. foreign policy often operates—prioritizing strategic impunity over moral responsibility. Enter Trump: The Naked Emperor Donald Trump’s “America First” doctrine did not signify a radical departure from the traditional goals of U.S. foreign policy—namely, the preservation of global primacy, and protection of strategic economic interests. Rather, it marked a rhetorical rupture, wherein long-standing imperial objectives were no longer obscured by the language of liberal internationalism. His infamous statement in October 2019, regarding U.S. troops guarding oil fields in Syria—“We're keeping the oil. I’ve always said that. We want to keep the oil.”—was not a strategic misstep but an unvarnished declaration of resource extraction as policy. While prior administrations had pursued similar objectives covertly, Trump simply made them explicit. Likewise, his staunch defense of arms deals with Saudi Arabia, even after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, highlighted the transactional logic that undergirds U.S. alliances.  In the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, Trump once again broke with diplomatic precedent. During a televised event alongside Senator J.D. Vance, he openly chastised Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, insisting that Kyiv express more gratitude for U.S. assistance. Trump’s accusation that Zelensky was “gambling with World War Three” by rejecting ceasefire proposals brokered by Washington was not just a deviation from the established tone of alliance solidarity—it was an explicit indictment of U.S. aid as conditional patronage, not principled support. Yet the central point remains: Trump is not an anomaly. He is the logical extension of a system that has long prioritized power over principle, merely articulated with unprecedented bluntness. His administration made explicit what others had executed discreetly—supporting coups, arming despots, and enforcing sanctions that disproportionately harmed civilian populations. In that sense, Trump didn’t break the system—he simply broadcast it. Abhimanyu Bhardwaj is a Senior Research Scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. ...

1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 … 92

Close