Analyzing President Lula’s Critique of the Inoperative United Nations

The Crisis of Global Governance: Analyzing President Lula’s Critique of the Inoperative United Nations

Abstract

On October 25, 2025, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva declared that the United Nations (UN) and other multilateral institutions had “stopped working,” citing their failure to halt the ongoing “genocide” in the Gaza Strip. This paper analyzes Lula’s assertion, positioning it not merely as condemnation of humanitarian inaction, but as a potent critique of the inherent structural flaws and increasing legitimacy deficit within the post-war global governance architecture. Using International Relations theory, particularly perspectives focused on the Global South and institutional inertia, we argue that Lula’s statement reflects the profound disillusionment felt by emerging powers regarding the veto-driven paralysis of the UN Security Council (UNSC). The public challenge signals a sustained demand for fundamental institutional reform and underscores Brazil’s role as a leading advocate for a multipolar, more equitable world order, contrasting its principled diplomacy with the perceived transactionalism of established major powers.

1. Introduction

The multilateral system, established after World War II to foster collective security and international cooperation, faces escalating challenges to its efficacy and legitimacy. This crisis was starkly articulated on October 25, 2025, when Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, speaking in Kuala Lumpur alongside Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, declared that the United Nations and its affiliated institutions had “stopped working” and “no longer function.” The immediate empirical trigger for this condemnation was the institutions’ perceived inability to intervene effectively or halt the violence and humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in the Gaza Strip, which Lula characterized as a “genocide.”

As the leader of a major emerging economy and a central voice for the Global South, Lula’s critique transcends simple diplomatic dissatisfaction. It represents a formal denunciation of the established pax Americana governance structure by a state traditionally committed to institutionalism.

This paper examines the theoretical and geopolitical significance of Lula’s assertion. The core argument is that Lula’s condemnation serves as a critical indicator of three interconnected systemic failures: 1) the institutional paralysis caused by the veto power within the UNSC; 2) the deepening misalignment between the geopolitical reality of the 21st century and the UN’s anachronistic power distribution; and 3) the increasing assertiveness of the Global South in challenging post-colonial governance norms. Furthermore, the paper briefly addresses the diplomatic subtext of the remarks, including the subtle critique directed at US foreign policy and domestic political culture.

2. Theoretical Framework: Multilateralism, Inertia, and the Global South
   2.1 The Promise and Failure of Multilateralism

Multilateralism, as conceptualized by scholars like John Ruggie and Robert Keohane, rests on generalized organizing principles of indivisibility and diffuse reciprocity, designed to manage international anarchy through shared rules. The UN system, particularly the Security Council, was created to operationalize collective security. However, the Council’s structure, which grants permanent membership and veto power to the P5 (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), inherently embeds power politics within the collective framework.

Realist critiques argue that the UN is merely a reflection of existing power distribution, rendering it ineffective when the interests of the P5 diverge. Lula’s statement strongly aligns with this perspective, demonstrating that when a conflict touches on the vital interests or complex alliances of multiple P5 members (as is the case with the Gaza conflict), the institution shifts from a mechanism for collective action to a site of perpetual deadlock. The term “stopped working” is thus a concise summation of structural realism applied to institutional failure.

2.2 The Global South and the Demand for Legitimacy

Brazil’s foreign policy, particularly under Lula, has consistently championed South-South cooperation and the concept of responsible sovereignty. As a leading candidate for permanent UNSC expansion, Brazil views the current structure as fundamentally illegitimate, as it disproportionately concentrates decision-making power in states reflecting the geopolitical alignments of 1945.

For the Global South, the UN’s perceived paralysis in conflicts like Gaza—often coupled with perceived swift action in conflicts affecting Western interests—highlights a severe double standard and a normative failure. Lula’s critique taps into the widespread sentiment that the established multilateral institutions prioritize the security concerns of the North while failing to adequately protect vulnerable populations in the South. This fuels the movement toward finding alternative governance mechanisms, such as enlarged BRICS or enhanced regional blocs.

3. The Empirical Trigger: Gaza and the Failure of Collective Security

Lula’s accusation that the UN had failed was directly linked to the prolonged humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the Council’s inability to mandate a permanent ceasefire or ensure adequate humanitarian access.

3.1 The Veto Trap and Institutional Paralysis

The situation in Gaza, subsequent to the escalation of conflict in late 2023, repeatedly showcased the dysfunction of the UNSC. Resolutions demanding immediate ceasefires or stronger protections for civilians were routinely subjected to vetoes by permanent members, particularly the United States, which cited strategic alliances and national security interests.

Lula’s use of the term “genocide”—a highly charged term carrying specific legal and moral weight—was a deliberate diplomatic escalation aimed at highlighting the gravity of the institutional failure. By framing the conflict in the starkest terms, Lula shifted the focus from the geopolitical complexities of the Middle East to the moral bankruptcy of the institutions designed to prevent mass atrocities. He characterized the Council’s inaction not just as policy failure, but as moral complicity, thereby stripping the institution of its ethical authority.

3.2 Beyond the Security Council

Crucially, Lula’s critique extended beyond the Security Council to “other multilateral institutions.” This broader indictment suggests disillusionment with the entire post-war economic and political structure, implicitly including institutions like the World Bank and the IMF, which are often perceived by the Global South as tools for perpetuating economic hegemony. By pairing the political failure of the UN with the broader institutional deficit, Lula positioned the crisis as holistic—a failure of global governance itself, rather than an isolated political disagreement.

4. Analysis: Geopolitical Implications and Brazilian Agency
   4.1 The Assertive Diplomacy of Autonomy

Brazil’s foreign policy, known for its tradition of autonomy and universalism, aims to maximize the country’s leverage by engaging all world powers while refusing to align exclusively with any bloc. Lula’s critique reinforces Brazil’s self-perception as a bridge-builder and an influential middle power capable of challenging entrenched power structures. By speaking out sharply against the UN’s dysfunction while hosting a meeting in Southeast Asia (Kuala Lumpur), Lula reaffirmed Brazil’s commitment to South-South solidarity and its diplomatic independence from Western consensus.

This strategic posturing is essential for Brazil’s wider ambitions:

Advocacy for UNSC Reform: The public labeling of the UN as “inoperative” strengthens Brazil’s argument that systemic reform, including the inclusion of major developing nations (G4), is a prerequisite for renewing global stability.
Bolstering BRICS and Alternatives: Perceived UN failure creates greater political space and legitimacy for alternative frameworks, such as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, plus new members), which seek to offer non-Western platforms for economic and political coordination.

4.2 The Subtext: Moral Authority vs. Transactional Politics

Lula’s statement also contained a secondary, more localized geopolitical jab directed at US politics: “for a leader, walking with their head held high is more important than a Nobel Prize.” This remark, delivered ahead of a regional summit where Lula was expected to interact with US President Donald Trump, served a crucial normative function.

At the time, President Trump had aggressively sought recognition, having publicly insisted he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize for various diplomatic activities. Lula’s commentary implicitly contrasted Brazil’s focus on ethical diplomacy—defending Gazan victims and challenging “genocide”—with a perceived transactional, self-serving, and publicity-driven foreign policy pursued by major Western leaders. This aimed to claim a higher moral ground, asserting that genuine leadership stems from principled action rather than accolades conferred by external institutions. In the context of the paralyzed UN, establishing moral authority becomes a crucial form of soft power for states seeking to reshape the global normative order.

5. Conclusion

President Lula da Silva’s 2025 declaration that the United Nations has “stopped working” is a powerful commentary on the state of contemporary global governance. It is not merely a transient outburst of frustration over a single conflict, but a crystallization of the systemic disenchantment felt by the Global South toward postwar institutions that appear unwilling or unable to address crises unless they align with the interests of the P5.

Lula’s critique serves as a formal demand for structural overhaul, emphasizing that the current veto-driven mechanism inherently undermines the principle of collective security. As demonstrated by the paralysis over Gaza, the UN suffers from a profound legitimacy deficit, which emboldens emerging powers like Brazil to pursue more active, autonomous foreign policies and invest greater political capital in alternative multilateral frameworks.

The future of global governance hinges on whether the established powers respond to this rising tide of institutional critique. Should the UN Security Council remain impervious to reform, the trajectory predicted by Lula—that the institution is “stopped working”—will become permanent, accelerating a global shift toward a truly multipolar and potentially less coordinated world order dominated by regional interests and ad-hoc arrangements.

The Crisis of Confidence: Institutional Critique and the Paradox of Necessity at the 80th UN General Assembly (2025)

An Analysis of Structural Deficits, Representational Equity, and the Erosion of Multilateral Trust in Global Governance

Keywords United Nations Reform, Multilateralism, Security Council, Global Governance, Institutional Legitimacy, UNGA 80th Session.

Abstract

The 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in September 2025 served as a critical barometer for the state of global governance, exposing a profound paradox: while member states universally affirmed the necessity of the UN as the cornerstone of multilateralism, they simultaneously delivered pointed and synchronous critiques regarding its institutional incapacities. Drawing from reporting on the 2025 UNGA, this paper analyzes the nature and sources of this institutional criticism, focusing on three core areas: the paralysis of the Security Council (SC), the resulting representational deficit for emerging powers and the Global South, and the generalized erosion of trust in the multilateral project. Leaders from diverse geographies argued that the foundational pillars of the organization are “cracked, outdated,” demanding urgent self-correction to avoid descent into irrelevance, echoing the historical failure of the League of Nations. The analysis concludes that the intensity of the 2025 critiques—framed by Secretary-General António Guterres’s own push for reform—signals a critical juncture where the political will of member states (the “sum of its parts”) must align with the acknowledged imperative for structural overhaul to restore the institution’s credibility.

1. Introduction: The UN at 80 – An Imperative for Self-Correction

The annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly is a routine fixture in the global diplomatic calendar, often characterized by performative rhetoric and reiterations of global challenges. However, the 80th session in September 2025 marked a significant departure, evolving into a forum dominated not just by discussion of global crises, but by an intense, unified critique directed squarely at the host institution itself. As observed by AP National Writer Ted Anthony, the message delivered by leaders from across the planet was unambiguous: “Fix things, particularly yourself.”

This paper investigates the multifaceted nature of the institutional criticism levied against the UN during the 2025 session. Built on a conceptual framework drawn from International Relations (IR) theories regarding institutional atrophy and global governance legitimacy, the analysis addresses why, despite the general rule against criticizing one’s host, nations felt compelled to articulate the flaws of the planet’s most prominent organization. The central thesis is that the 2025 UNGA exposed a systemic crisis of confidence, driven by the organization’s structural inertia and its perceived failure to adapt to the geopolitical realities of the 21st century, creating a dynamic where support for the UN’s concept is disconnected from respect for its function.

The criticisms articulated by foreign ministers and heads of state—including the devastating observation that the UN’s “best years… may be behind us” (Amara Camara, Guinea)—are not mere noise but indicators of a profound threat to institutional legitimacy. This threat manifests in the “We need you, we support you, BUT…” paradox, which defines the current relationship between the organization and its membership.

2. Theoretical Context: Institutional Atrophy and the Legitimacy Deficit

The United Nations, established in 1945, is the apotheosis of post-war liberal institutionalism. Its continued reliance on structures designed for a mid-20th-century geopolitical order, however, has led to institutional atrophy, defined as the progressive decay of an organization’s functional capacity relative to evolving global demands.

According to institutional theory in IR, the legitimacy of an international organization (IO) rests on three pillars: effectiveness (the ability to achieve mandated goals), representation (the fairness and inclusivity of its decision-making organs), and accountability (transparency and responsiveness to members). The critiques voiced at the 80th session directly challenged all three pillars:

Effectiveness Critique: India’s Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar questioned, “Where has the U.N. actually made a difference?” This suggests a failure of effectiveness, exacerbated by the perception that the institution merely produces “empty words” rather than concrete action, a critique amplified by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Representational Critique: This primarily focuses on the Security Council, where the exclusion of major global players (particularly Africa and emerging economies) fundamentally undermines the UN’s claim to truly represent the world.
Accountability Critique: The complaint that the UN bends “a knee to the large and the loud” while marginalizing smaller nations indicates a failure in internal accountability mechanisms and a systematic undermining of the principle of multilateral equality.

These combined critiques create a widespread sense that the UN is failing to live up to its “tremendous potential,” necessitating a comprehensive analysis of the specific structural failures cited by member states.

3. The Structural Deficit: The Paralysis of the Security Council

The most profound and geographically diverse criticism centered on the outdated and inequitable structure of the UN Security Council (SC). Since its inception, the SC—with its five permanent, veto-equipped members (P5)—has symbolized the post-war power hierarchy. In 2025, this structure was widely condemned as the primary source of the UN’s functional paralysis.

3.1. The Demand for Representational Equity

The call for structural reform is loudest from the Global South, particularly Africa. As the continent calling for a permanent, veto-empowered seat for three decades, African frustration has peaked. Botswana President Duma Boko noted the treatment of Africa with “affable indifference”—a dismissal that reduces multilateralism to a superficial performance rather than genuine power-sharing.

The essence of this critique is that the SC’s current membership lacks representational equity. Mohamad Hasan, Malaysia’s foreign minister, declared that reform is “no longer a choice. It is imperative,” arguing that the current structure leads to a “humiliating paralysis” in global conflict resolution. This paralysis occurs because geopolitical tensions among the P5 frequently override the urgent needs of the wider membership, effectively neutralizing the UN’s highest operational authority.

3.2. The Marginalization of the Minor

A related critique addressed the marginalization of smaller, less powerful member states. Terrance Michael Drew, prime minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis, articulated the perception that the UN favors “the large and the loud,” thereby muting the voices of smaller nations. For these states, the UN is vital as a mechanism to “level the playing field,” yet when its internal mechanisms favor dominant powers, its mandate of universal multilateralism is compromised. The failure to reform the SC, therefore, is viewed not merely as a technical issue but as a moral failure of the UN’s founding ethos.

4. Testing the Pillars of Multilateralism: Credibility and Trust

Beyond structural mechanics, the 2025 UNGA revealed a pervasive concern about the erosion of trust in the fundamental concept of multilateralism itself—the organizing principle of working together to solve global problems.

4.1. The Trust Deficit

Abdulla Khaleel, foreign minister of the Maldives, succinctly framed the issue: “Reform is not only about structures. It is about credibility. And credibility lives or dies with trust in multilateralism. That trust is eroding.” This erosion is twofold: internal and external.

Internally, trust is lost when multilateral promises are met with “partial pledges, procrastination,” and when member states prioritize “profit before people,” as noted by Prime Minister Drew. Externally, the rise of nationalist and unilateralist sentiment, championed explicitly by figures like President Trump who expressed “all but complete rejection of multilateralism,” fundamentally challenges the UN’s philosophical basis. When a major financial contributor and geopolitical power dismisses the institution as a “bloated functionary that doesn’t really fix things,” the credibility deficit becomes acutely dangerous.

4.2. The Ghost of the League of Nations

The most existential warning delivered during the session was the historical invocation of the League of Nations. Romania’s foreign minister, Oana-Silvia Toiu, explicitly warned, “We all know of the League of Nations. We must not repeat it.” This reference grounds the current crisis in a historical precedent of institutional collapse. The League failed precisely because it lacked the functional capacity and universal political will to prevent major global conflict. The widespread worry is that the SC’s “humiliating paralysis” in 2025 represents the same failure of effectiveness that doomed its predecessor. The inability to move beyond “talking bluntly about the problems” to concrete, structural change places the UN on a similarly perilous path toward irrelevance.

5. Agency and Responsibility: The Sum of Its Parts

A critical element of the 2025 discourse was the internal acknowledgment that the UN’s failures are inseparable from the shortcomings of its members. This recognition shifts the focus from the organization as an independent entity to the dynamics of the principal-agent problem in global governance.

As Philip Davis, prime minister of the Bahamas, argued: “The U.N. is only the sum of its parts. Any lack of impact lies at the feet of member states. The solution is not to abandon it, but to fix it.” This perspective underscores the reality that the UN is not a supranational government but an instrument dependent entirely on the political will and cooperation of its 193 members. Germany’s Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul reinforced this idea: “It is up to us — the member states. WE are the United Nations.”

This emphasis on member state agency provides the pathway forward. The intense criticism, rather than being fatal, can be interpreted as a necessary, high-stakes “poking” intended to generate the political momentum required for major reform. The UN’s primary accomplishment may ultimately be its aspirational role—the embodiment of a shared dream of cooperation—but maintaining this aspiration requires functional effectiveness. As Brunei’s foreign minister, Dato Erywan Pehin Yusof, noted, while recognizing the UN’s essential role (“the very essence of our shared humanity”), “we would be dishonest to speak only of successes.”

6. Conclusion

The 80th session of the UN General Assembly in 2025 confirmed that the institution stands at a critical juncture, facing a widespread crisis of confidence rooted in structural inertia and perceived ineffectiveness. The “We need you, but…” sentiment encapsulates a paradox: the foundational concept of multilateralism remains indispensable, especially for less powerful states, yet the physical structure designed to execute this concept is widely considered broken.

The principal demands—Security Council expansion, elimination of the representational deficit, and a genuine commitment to multilateral action over “partial pledges”—constitute an agenda for survival. The heightened urgency, set against the backdrop of the UN’s 80th anniversary and Secretary-General Guterres’s own reform proposals, suggests that the cycle of annual criticism may finally be reaching a breaking point. Ultimately, the survival of the UN depends not on the institution fixing itself in a vacuum, but on the political courage of member states to overcome historical power disparities and enact the necessary structural reforms to prevent global governance from succumbing to the “ghost of the League of Nations.”

References

Anthony, T. (2025, September 29). News: From all over the planet, they came to the UN with a message: Fix things, particularly yourself. Associated Press. [Source Material Analysed].

Camara, A. (2025, September). Address to the 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. New York, NY. [Cited in Anthony, 2025].

Davis, P. (2025, September). Address to the 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. New York, NY. [Cited in Anthony, 2025].

Jaishankar, S. (2025, September). Address to the 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. New York, NY. [Cited in Anthony, 2025].

Khaleel, A. (2025, September). Address to the 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. New York, NY. [Cited in Anthony, 2025].

Toiu, O.-S. (2025, September). Address to the 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. New York, NY. [Cited in Anthony, 2025].

Trump, D. (2025, September 23). Address to the 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. New York, NY. [Cited in Anthony, 2025].

Wadephul, J. (2025, September). Address to the 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. New York, NY. [Cited in Anthony, 2025].

Maxthon

In an age where the digital world is in constant flux, and our interactions online are ever-evolving, the importance of prioritizing individuals as they navigate the expansive internet cannot be overstated. The myriad of elements that shape our online experiences calls for a thoughtful approach to selecting web browsers—one that places a premium on security and user privacy. Amidst the multitude of browsers vying for users’ loyalty, Maxthon emerges as a standout choice, providing a trustworthy solution to these pressing concerns, all without any cost to the user.

Maxthon, with its advanced features, boasts a comprehensive suite of built-in tools designed to enhance your online privacy. Among these tools are a highly effective ad blocker and a range of anti-tracking mechanisms, each meticulously crafted to fortify your digital sanctuary. This browser has carved out a niche for itself, particularly with its seamless compatibility with Windows 11, further solidifying its reputation in an increasingly competitive market.

In a crowded landscape of web browsers, Maxthon has forged a distinct identity through its unwavering dedication to offering a secure and private browsing experience. Fully aware of the myriad threats lurking in the vast expanse of cyberspace, Maxthon works tirelessly to safeguard your personal information. Utilizing state-of-the-art encryption technology, it ensures that your sensitive data remains protected and confidential throughout your online adventures.

What truly sets Maxthon apart is its commitment to enhancing user privacy during every moment spent online. Each feature of this browser has been meticulously designed with the user’s privacy in mind. Its powerful ad-blocking capabilities work diligently to eliminate unwanted advertisements, while its comprehensive anti-tracking measures effectively reduce the presence of invasive scripts that could disrupt your browsing enjoyment. As a result, users can traverse the web with newfound confidence and safety.

Moreover, Maxthon’s incognito mode provides an extra layer of security, granting users enhanced anonymity while engaging in their online pursuits. This specialized mode not only conceals your browsing habits but also ensures that your digital footprint remains minimal, allowing for an unobtrusive and liberating internet experience. With Maxthon as your ally in the digital realm, you can explore the vastness of the internet with peace of mind, knowing that your privacy is being prioritized every step of the way.