The meetings of the United Nations General Assembly typically lack excitement, but this year’s session highlighted a world in turmoil, showcasing a disintegrating framework of international law and a humanitarian system under severe strain. Instead of being a forum for decisive action, the event devolved into a spectacle of bravado, discontent, and conflict.
The assembly served as a historical snapshot of four major destabilizing crises—Ukraine, Iran, Palestine, and Sudan—each seemingly without viable solutions or genuine interest in resolution. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy recounted the toll of five years of Russian aggression, noting the staggering human cost, with hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides, and criticized the ineffectiveness of sanctions against Russia. Former President Donald Trump reiterated his threat to “annihilate” Iran unless it agrees to a deal, a declaration that has lost its weight through frequent repetition. In response, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian asserted that Iran has suffered from U.S. terrorism and aggression and vowed to defend the nation with maximum strength. The sole U.S. representative present chose to leave the room during the discourse.
Amid this hostile atmosphere, attempts to clarify facts were overshadowed by a hunger for power. Jordan’s King Abdullah II remarked on the alarming impunity of the Israeli government, stating that it no longer questions whether it can act without consequence, as it is well aware of the answer. He further questioned the value of international law that can be disregarded for decades, a sentiment underscored by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the only leader indicted by the International Criminal Court to address the assembly, who delivered a combative speech that suggested the law is devoid of significance.
The assembly also witnessed the United Arab Emirates, a pivotal player in the conflict in Sudan, ironically advocating for peace and civilian governance for the Sudanese people, despite being accused of supporting the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a group implicated in genocide and ethnic cleansing. As a close ally of the U.S. and the U.K., the UAE has escalated the conflict in Sudan without facing any repercussions or even acknowledgment from its partners. Their substantial financial investments, including a $500 million stake in a cryptocurrency venture linked to the Trump family, have seemingly influenced the silence of these nations regarding the UAE’s actions. A senior U.S. advisor acknowledged the presence of foreign interests in Sudan but refrained from naming the countries involved.
The meeting’s procedures were also skewed by those willing to exploit their power. The Trump administration exercised its sovereign right to control participation, effectively weaponizing the visa process and transforming the UN from a neutral entity into an instrument serving U.S. and allied interests due to its location on American soil. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and 80 other Palestinian officials were denied visas for the second consecutive time during Trump’s administration. Additionally, the leader of Sudan’s government, in opposition to the UAE-backed RSF, was similarly denied entry, reflecting the successful lobbying of Emirati interests in Washington. This dynamic illustrates the current landscape of foreign policy and conflict, where manipulation of the system favors certain nations over others.
In the midst of this chaos, Tom Fletcher, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, energetically moved between meetings, maintaining an optimistic demeanor. He shared a series of social media updates discussing potential actions amid the ongoing crises, embodying a kind of diplomatic resilience. In one clip, he walks with Alexander De Croo, the UN Development Programme administrator, who identifies the problem as a series of overlapping crises. Fletcher asserted that diplomacy is key to alleviating these challenges, emphasizing the need to open vital chokepoints such as Bab al-Mandab, the Black Sea, and the Strait of Hormuz to manage the growing humanitarian and development burdens.
Fletcher represents a new breed of international and humanitarian professionals who navigate funding reductions, diminishing interest in peace, and the politicization of international aid to ensure that some support reaches the millions suffering from war, climate change, disease, poverty, hunger, and exploitation. While the conflicts persist, the focus has shifted to negotiating with influential powers to facilitate the delivery of essential supplies and assistance, from winter aid in Gaza to efforts to manage the Ebola outbreak.
However, the current situation reflects more than just the actions of dedicated diplomats and reckless warring factions. A deeper, more complex challenge is emerging: the rapidly evolving nature of military conflict itself. Warfare is becoming increasingly difficult to contain due to the proliferation, sophistication, and affordability of artificial intelligence and drones, which enable remote military operations that blur the lines between high-intensity and low-grade assaults. Consequently, conflicts are less likely to have defined beginnings or endings, often resulting in a chronic state of disruption in normal life, as seen in the ongoing tensions with Iran, the ambiguous conflict in Sudan, and the tenuous situation in Gaza.
