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 Leaders from diverse geographies argued that the foundational pillars of the organization are “cracked, outdated,” demanding urgent self-correction to avoid descent into irrelevance, echoing the historical failure of the League of Nations.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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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.