“Better Together”? The 80th General Assembly and the Future of International Cooperation
On the week of 23 September 2025, the UN General Assembly convened for its General Debate, bringing together Heads of State and Government for important discussions. This year’s conference, however, appears to mark a turning point in international diplomacy due to the rising intensity of global conflicts and shifting geopolitical dynamics. The theme of the session, ‘Better Together,’ carries a sense of irony as it exemplifies the growing decline in international cooperation.
‘Eighty years ago, in a world scorched by war, leaders made a choice. Cooperation over chaos,’ said Secretary General António Guterres in his opening speech. His reminder of the nature of the UN as “a forum for sovereign states to pursue international dialogue and cooperation” may be familiar but feel particularly necessary amid increasingly divided understandings of the UN’s purpose among member states.
Questions regarding the UN’s ability to facilitate genuine multilateralism have grown louder. Divergent views about the nature of the UN as a intervening body was highlighted by numerous member states. Terrance Michael Drew, Prime Minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis, Botswana’s President Duma Boko, and Malaysian Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan were among those who expressed frustration at the UN’s failure of representing smaller states adequately. Boko, in particular, voiced his deep dissatisfaction with the inequitable structure of the UN Security Council. The continually dismissed efforts by African states of securing a permanent seat have caused tensions to build among smaller states, casting doubt on the UN’s claim to the an institution that is “better together”.
This pessimism sharply contrasts with the reaffirmed commitment of several major powers to engage with the UN as a key platform for international cooperation. China, for example, has publicly expressed interest in reforms aimed at promoting “true multilateralism” within international organizations. The European Union also stressed its commitment to multilateralism, with a special emphasis on security, human rights, and “deepening partnerships”, during its participation from 21-25 September. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul echoed the sentiments of other states in favor of multilateralism by reminding the assembly that, ‘It is up to us — the member states. We are the United Nations. We want these United Nations to be strong’.
However, the initiative of influential states may also be perceived as reinforcing existing imbalance and undermining multilateralism. According to analysis from Columbia University’s SIPA International Organization and United Nations Studies Department, efforts for reform often ‘fall flat’ because attempts at multilateralism from major powers only reaffirms their entrenched roles within the UN. This threatens deepening the divide that prevents effective international cooperation. True multilateralism requires inclusivity, ensuring that concerns raised by states such as Botswana and Saint Kitts and Nevis are addressed equitably. Without this, multilateralism risks becoming hollow and disconnected from the diverse economic, political, social, and humanitarian challenges facing member states.
In stark contrast to China and the European Union, The United States has pivoted towards an ‘America First’ approach raising concerns about its reliability as a global leader. President Donald Trump’s 58-minute address exemplified this shift, prompting member states to question whether they can depend on the US in matters of collective problem-solving. Washington has increasingly rejected multilateralism wherever it is perceived to conflict with domestic priorities. As a result, the longstanding precedent of the US facilitating dialogue and conflict resolution through international organizations has erode. Moreover, The United States’ withdrawal of major funding to UN agencies such as UNHRC, UNESCO, and UNRWA continues to placed a strain on the UN’s resources, considering that the US contributions account for 22% of its budget. As a result, criticisms of the UN’s ineffectiveness are likely to intensify.
At the same time, however, the reduced influence of US policy may be crucial for fostering authentic multilateralism among states. Yet neither a model dominated by powerful actors such as China and the EU nor one marked by US disengagement is capable of producing equitable cooperation on its own. Even if the UN distances itself from US preferences, meaningful multilateralism requires at least one major power willing to anchor its efforts through substantial financial and diplomatic commitment.
Across the General Debate, the consensus, that the current state of international cooperation is in disarray, was clear. Multilateralism is a shared vision. In this sense, the ‘Better Together’ theme of the 80th session can be considered aspirational, reflecting that ideal that the UN should strive towards. The obstacles to realising this vision lie in member states’ differing expectations of alliances and institutions. Calls for sweeping reform and critiques of UN structures alone cannot address the fundamental problem of weakened trust and diminishing cooperation. Nor will dismissing the UN’s purpose lead to progress.
In order to further the ‘Better Together’ initiative, states must recognize the internal and external factors to shaping international cooperation. While structural limitations within the UN persist, organisation still offers a vital platform for dialogue. Wadephul’s emphasis on member states’ responsibility for facilitating international cooperation offers the most plausible path toward progress.
Ultimately, through a balanced initiative from both developed and developing states, the UN can promote a more equitable multilateral order. Guterres’ vision of a United Nations that “adapts, innovates, and is empowered to deliver for people everywhere” will only be achievable if states look beyond institutional shortcomings and acknowledge their own obligations to constructive engagement.
Image courtesy of John Gillespie via Wikimedia Commons, ©2017. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
