As usual, the United Nations General Assembly will open its 79th session on Tuesday with an agenda full of problems: the Middle East, the war in Ukraine, the humanitarian emergency in Sudan and the political crisis in Venezuela, to name just a few. Many people expect too much from the meetings of this multilateral body, without understanding that its tools are limited, although necessary nonetheless.
“The problems of the 21st century are common and transversal and cannot be solved by a single actor. So, here there is a manifest spirit of showing and understanding that the United Nations can contribute as a forum that helps us not to kill ourselves, but not to provide the actual solution,” explains Rafael Piñeros, professor of international relations at the Externado University of Colombia.
As wars escalate around the world, causing civilian casualties every day, critics of the United Nations say the international body is failing in its most essential mission, while experts warn that the UN is being used as a scapegoat for matters beyond its control. One of the UN’s core tasks is to maintain international peace and security, but its record has been severely damaged as bloodshed in conflicts around the world intensifies.
Critics of the body point to these brutal wars, among others, as evidence that the UN, which this week holds its General Assembly of world leaders in New York, has failed in its mission. The UN chief, like Piñeros, has a different view.
“It is obvious that we do not have peace and security in the world, and it is obvious that it is not because of the UN as an institution that this is not happening,” Secretary-General António Guterres told AFP. “It is because of the member states,” he said.
And if the UN is not so effective, why do we still go to it?
“The UN has never been able to stop conflicts involving major powers,” said Richard Gowan of the International Crisis Group, accusing countries with dominant military powers of hiding behind the UN.
“In the end, it is better to have the United States and Russia arguing about Syria in the Security Council than to have an active war,” he added.
Although it is a forum with limited capabilities, the UN General Assembly can offer us a glimpse into how these crises are viewed by member states today. Here are some of them and what role they may play in this week of diplomatic meetings.
Iran open to diplomacy
On Monday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced that his country is ready to “start a new round of nuclear negotiations, if the other parties are ready as well.” The aim would be to resume talks with foreign diplomats during this same trip, on which he is accompanied by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who has little influence in the discussion, as it is Ayatollah Alia Khamenei who has the final say on nuclear policy.
According to Araghchi, there is already a “general declaration of readiness” with the other parties, but the wars in Ukraine and Gaza have made the resumption of dialogue more difficult and complicated than before. This opening to diplomacy could be motivated by the proximity of the US elections and fears that a return of Donald Trump could further deteriorate relations between the two nations and kill any attempt at negotiation.
The big problem is that both sides are running out of tools to apply pressure at the table. On the one hand, Iran’s increased support for Russia and Hezbollah, as well as the drone attack on Israel in April, is seen as a sign of unwillingness to talk. These actions have led the E3 (Britain, France and Germany) to call for a tougher policy against Tehran.
Meanwhile, in October 2025, exactly one year from now, UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which has allowed sanctions to be imposed on Tehran for missile exports, expires. Without this remedy, the West “risks eliminating our main tool of pressure on Iran,” a senior European official told Reuters.
Despite the urgency to resume negotiations, Kelsey Davenport, nonproliferation policy director for the advocacy group Arms Control Association, said substantive talks were unlikely before November, although interim measures such as some sanctions relief for Iran in exchange for broader oversight of its nuclear facilities may be adopted.
Ukraine: The two main actors are not even talking to each other
Over the weekend, Moscow ruled out a meeting between its Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his US counterpart Antony Blinken in New York. This is not the first time that the two officials have avoided a meeting, despite sharing a space conducive to diplomatic encounters. In November last year, Blinken avoided meeting Lavrov at the meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in North Macedonia.
“This issue, too, that they do not meet, is part of the power dynamics and the pressure dynamics that may exist to find a solution. It seems to me that it is more like a power game because there are dialogues at the level of mid-level officials and at the level of technical officials, but political dialogue is scarce. This is worrying because one of the delegations that we have made to the five members of the Security Council, including the United States and Russia, is the maintenance of peace. So it is serious that the two historical members of the Security Council do not discuss it directly or publicly before the international community,” says Piñeros.
Last week, the US Treasury imposed new sanctions targeting Russia across the technology sector, aimed at preventing Moscow from accessing certain US-made computer systems geared toward the military. There was also a package of sanctions against North Korea, which has become one of Moscow’s closest allies amid its isolation.
Despite not having a meeting with Blinken, Lavrov insisted that Russia is not isolated and has “a colossal programme of meetings” in New York on issues that do not concern Ukraine. Among the issues Lavrov may discuss would be policies on Israel, Iran and even North Korea, on which Washington and Moscow also have totally opposite positions.
The distancing comes at a critical point: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is close to presenting his US counterpart Joe Biden with a “plan for victory” in the war against Russia. This document would seek to persuade Washington and its allies to allow missile launches from Ukraine into Russian territory. The White House, for its part, is preparing a new aid package of some US$375 million for kyiv.
Sudan, an example that other mechanisms also matter
Last March, the Security Council, with Russia abstaining, called for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Sudan, where the conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces continues to claim the lives of thousands of Sudanese and force the migration of some 10 million people. It has also plunged the country into a severe food crisis that has 18 million at risk of starvation, despite the country being rich in resources such as gold and oil.
Three months later, in June, the same Council, in a resolution – also with Russia abstaining – demanded an end to the fighting in the city of Darfur, warning of a “nightmare scenario” that was taking over large parts of the country. However, despite these resolutions, the humanitarian emergency in the country continues and the conflict continues to claim more and more victims. What is happening?
“The measures taken by the General Assembly are not very effective because they are not mandatory. However, at the same time they serve to raise awareness about those issues that complicate or make life more difficult for people in different places. In fact, there is a bittersweet taste when one looks at the multiple internal conflicts, the challenges to peace and security, but also as former Secretary Dag Hammarskjöld said, the United Nations is not there to take us to heaven, but to prevent us from falling into hell. In that sense, delegating the solution to problems to the Organization would be a complete mistake. It is the states that have to solve them with mediation, whether by the United Nations or by other multiple organizations at a regional level, as in the African case it could be the African Union. So blaming the UN for everything or much of what happens in the world is also a commonplace to divert attention from the primary responsible, which are the states,” explains Piñeros.
You may also like:
