A Different but Ineffective United Nations

TEHRAN (Iran News) In fact, this difference was not only in the form but also in the nature of the messages and diplomatic tactics.

The intensification of the discourse on bloc alignment and the multipolarization of the world this year made the confrontation between the blocs of power more explicit.

Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, Chile, Colombia, and others condemned the behavior of the United States and the Zionist regime, accusing them of genocide in Gaza, attacks on countries, and the killing of children, women, and civilians.

The West (led by the United States and Europe) emphasized preserving the rules-based international order, condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and supporting Ukraine.

Russia and China strongly referred to being “pressured by the West,” to “security threats,” and to the need to move toward a “fairer and more multipolar world order.” They accused the West of “hypocrisy.”

The Non-Aligned Movement and developing countries had a louder voice. They demanded greater attention to issues such as food security, climate change, international debt, and inequality and declared that they do not want to become victims of the rivalry of the great powers. The main message of many of them was: “This war (Ukraine) is not our problem, but its consequences—such as rising grain and energy prices—have affected us.”

Although condemnation of war remained strong, there were also noticeable differences in tone and tactics.

The speech of Russia’s representative, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, was more defensive and focused on justifying Russia’s actions based on “NATO threats.” He sought to accuse the West of undermining peace throughout the world and emphasized Russia’s determination to continue supporting Ukraine. Yet, an underlying tone often conveyed concern about “war fatigue,” the need to find long-term diplomatic solutions, and an emphasis on global peace.

Countries such as Turkey, India, and Brazil emphasized the necessity of achieving “immediate peace” and of restoring the role of diplomacy in achieving peace, without necessarily blaming one side entirely.

Some topics that had been more marginal in previous years became central this year. For the first time, the risks and opportunities of artificial intelligence were widely discussed by world leaders, who called for the creation of international regulatory frameworks.

Thus, it can be clearly stated that this year’s speeches were “different,” not in their format but in their content and geopolitical context. This difference can be summed up in the statement that the world has become more multipolar than ever before, and the United Nations General Assembly reflected the emergence of these divides.

While the great powers insisted on their own positions, the voices of the Third World countries, which called for solutions to their urgent livelihood crises, were heard more loudly and more seriously than before. This shows that global priorities are changing and that traditional diplomacy is under new pressure.