It's not the UN collapsing,
but the world changing around it
By Yiannis Damellos
September 22, 2026
The first day of the United Nations General Assembly was supposed to be about the world. Naturally, Donald Trump tried to make it about himself. He threatened Iran with annihilation, spoke about American military power, attacked international institutions, and returned to the familiar language of strength and confrontation. But beneath the spectacle, something considerably more important was happening. Iran was talking to the United States. Gaza was becoming a dividing line between Washington and an increasing number of its traditional partners. Artificial intelligence emerged as one of the central questions of international governance. And Canada, under Mark Carney, was quietly doing something fundamentally novel: building relationships beyond Washington.
Iran War
In my opinion, Iran, not Trump, is the big story here cause it showed up in full colors and did not boycott the gathering. President Masoud Pezeshkian is in New York and is scheduled to address the General Assembly Wednesday, while Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi (in the picture above) already met U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff on the sidelines of the session. Trump said American and Iranian representatives held a productive meeting lasting about three hours. Iranian state media said Tehran used the meeting to communicate conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, including lifting the U.S. naval blockade, releasing frozen Iranian assets and ending the war on all fronts. In other words, while the American president was threatening Iran from the podium, American and Iranian officials were sitting down together in New York to discuss how the war might actually end. That contradiction is probably more important than anything Trump said into the microphone or anything he has said since he started the war.
Gaza
Gaza was the second major fault line. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan accused Israel of harboring a “genocidal mindset” and committing “acts of state terror” in Gaza and the West Bank, and Jordan's King Abdullah stated that the Israeli government’s "expansionist appetite" has become a regional danger and warned that Israel is testing boundaries "step by calculated step". He described Gaza and the West Bank as two fronts of a single strategy, accusing Israel of prolonging the war in Gaza, destroying infrastructure, and attempting to make a Palestinian state impossible. He also accused Israel of carrying out forced displacement and de facto annexation in the West Bank under the guise of law enforcement and land registration, and finally warned that Israeli military activities and presence in southern Syria threaten Jordan's own border and water security. Meanwhile, Gulf foreign ministers pressed for implementation of outstanding commitments under the Gaza ceasefire, and the Israeli delegation walked out during Erdoğan's remarks.
Well, Erdoğan's position on Gaza cannot be an alibi for Turkey's geopolitical ambitions, as his underlying calculation was straightforward once the Saudis asked for help. Ankara has military weight and regional interests, yet little obvious reason to enter the Iran war simply because Washington or Saudi Arabia would prefer it to. And despite its latest security accord with Riyadh and Islamabad, Turkey has no good incentive to enter a bloody regional fight. That makes its Gaza position and its Iran calculation two separate but equally significant questions.
Has the UN failed its mission?
Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is another voice worth hearing, and as a veteran left-wing politician, his opposition to war's meat machine and preference for multilateral diplomacy are hardly new. But I guess he's seen so many violations of international law taking place since the last time he visited New York that he fiercely criticized the UN for failing to fulfill one of its fundamental missions: protecting humanity from war.
But, wait a second here! When did the UN really protect humanity from war? I find his perspective too rhetorical. The United Nations has never single-handedly protected humanity from war, because it relies on the collective cooperation, funding, and military contributions of its sovereign member states rather than acting as an independent superpower. It was formed in October 1945 following World War II and designed as a diplomatic forum for collective security and peaceful dispute resolution, not a unilateral enforcer. If any enforcement was ever required, it had to take permission from the Security Council, you know, that place where "Veto" rules. And during its enforcement days, it paid a high human cost: 4,507 total personnel have died since 1948, while serving under the UN flag. The majority of them died recently in Somalia and Bosnia.
Instead of criticizing it, we should focus on protecting the UN from hostile entities like Trump and what he represents. That would be a more significant point to address in the Assembly, because to accuse the UN of failing to fulfill one of its fundamental missions- protecting humanity from war- is not correct. Trump, on the other hand, facilitated that failure by signing an executive order and presidential memorandum, and withdrawing the United States from 66 international organizations, including 31 United Nations-affiliated entities and bodies. And now, independent watchdogs, medical bodies, and global news agencies have directly linked child deaths to these funding cuts.
And, if you ask me, Trump did that not just because "the money is not worth spent", as he said, but also because he prefers a world without the UN and without international courts -any courts whatsoever- so he can fulfil his plans unrestrained.
Yes, the institution is under enormous strain, certainly. That is perhaps the understatement of the year. But even its critics continue to use it as the place where disputes are aired, alliances tested and, occasionally, enemies meet. Like Iran and the United States doing precisely that on Tuesday. This is perhaps the best evidence.
I know it is not proof that we have an immediate solution. Today, we learned what the Iranians demand to open the Strait of Hormuz. This is significant. Soon, we will see if they are willing to compromise on what the US has in mind. So there are no guarantees. But without the United Nations, we would lack a sanctuary for communication and signing of political peace treaties between warring nations. The UN is still there because we still want to give peace a chance.
Unless we want to move on to a world without a UN, a realm where the strong will never have to answer for violations of human rights and the weak will become fodder for the drones of the mighty.
We need global governance of AI
Yet, the issue that may ultimately matter even more than today's wars is artificial intelligence. Secretary-General António Guterres placed AI alongside war and peace, inequality and climate change as one of humanity's four defining tests of power. He called for binding international cooperation on AI governance and warned that life-and-death decisions should never simply be handed to machines. That is not technological housekeeping. It is a question of who controls one of the most consequential technologies ever created — governments, international institutions, or the corporations developing it. And that question becomes considerably more urgent when AI is moving simultaneously into military systems, intelligence, information, and autonomous decision-making. Guterres warned that power is increasingly moving from governments toward private corporations and individuals, while machines themselves are acquiring unprecedented autonomy.
Helpless in Kyiv
Ukraine was present too, although it no longer monopolized the diplomatic stage. Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he was ready for a trilateral meeting with Trump and Vladimir Putin and discussed possible de-escalatory measures with the American President, including an energy ceasefire. France's Emmanuel Macron also called for a moratorium on attacks against energy infrastructure and shipping in the Black Sea. The significance is less in predicting whether negotiations will succeed than in noting that diplomacy remains alive even while the wars continue.
Working the Room
And then there is Canada. Mark Carney did not come to New York merely to make another speech — he isn't even addressing the General Assembly's general debate this year. He came to work the room. Ottawa says the purpose is to diversify Canada's economic and security partnerships, deepen ties with Europe and other partners, and help build a more effective United Nations. On Gaza, Canada announced about US$71 million in assistance for the Palestinian government and restrictions on goods produced in Israeli settlements, while Carney said the measures were intended to preserve the possibility of a two-state solution. This is not grandstanding. It is the practical diplomacy of a middle power recognizing that the international environment has changed — and that Canada cannot afford to depend on a single relationship for its economic and strategic security.
That, finally, may be the real story of the opening day. The UN is not collapsing because Lula pointed the blame at the sanctuary. The organization is under pressure because the world it was designed to manage has changed faster than its institutions. Carney was the first to point it out in Davos when he realized Trump's real intentions towards Canada. Guterres himself described the world's old cracks as having become canyons, while arguing that military, economic and technological power alone cannot solve the problems now confronting humanity. Trump may have had the loudest microphone on Tuesday. But Iran had a meeting. Gaza brought countries together around a common diplomatic concern. AI forced governments to confront a new form of power. Ukraine kept the door to negotiation open. And Canada, along with other willing middle powers, continued building alternatives. Perhaps the most revealing thing about this UNGA is not who shouted the loudest today, but who was quietly getting on with its business in a not-so-wonderful world.
No comments:
Post a Comment