From Gaza to Ukraine and climate to migration, world leaders traded sharply different visions in New York. Yet as they debate World events, United Nations itself is in danger of becoming but a whisper of its former self?
Carlos Taylhardat | 3 Narratives New September 27, 2025
“The United Nations was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from.”
Dag Hammarskjöld said that in the 1950s—a sober mission statement carved from the ruins of a world war. This week, as leaders filed out of the General Assembly after a bruising 80th-anniversary session, the line felt less like history and more like an unanswered challenge. United Nations
Context (dates, what happened, why it matters):
Across September 23–26, 2025, presidents and prime ministers used the UN stage to redraw the year’s conflict lines: U.S. President Donald Trump blasted globalism and threatened new tariffs, Jordan’s King Abdullah pressed the Gaza crisis, Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky sought longer-range weapons, and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to “finish the job” in Gaza—prompting mass walkouts. Meanwhile, the UN marked 80 years amid a cash crunch, worsened by delayed or halted payments from its biggest funders. Financial Times+6Reuters+6Reuters+6
From the Inside of the Skeptic’s Camp
The UN as a bloated talk shop that fails the real world.
If you sat with the sovereignties delegates this week, the critique sharpened into a credo. For them, the UN is a grand hall of promises that too often dissolves into committees and acronyms. They point to Security Council vetoes that stall action, peacekeeping missions that linger for years, and agencies they see as politicized or inefficient. When the United States, traditionally the UN’s largest funder, halts or slashes contributions, skeptics say it’s not vandalism; it’s leverage to force reform. With Washington historically assessed at 22% of the regular budget and roughly 26% of peacekeeping, any U.S. retrenchment hits like a meteor. Why should taxpayers bankroll what they see as failed deterrence in places like Mali or Congo? Why not move to bilateral aid, targeted and audited, instead of what they frame as a diffuse multilateral machine? Reuters+3Security Council Report+3Congress.gov+3
“all they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up. It’s empty words and empty words don’t solve war.”
The rhetorical centerpiece came on September 23: Trump told world leaders their countries were “going to hell,” calling climate action a “con job,” and hammering migration and borders. To his supporters, it sounded like overdue plain talk after decades of euphemism. If the UN can’t secure borders, curb wars, or stop terrorism, what exactly is the product? The mass walkouts during Netanyahu’s address only confirmed the skeptics’ view that the institution is a theater where partisans grandstand, not a workshop where peace is built. Reuters+2Reuters+2
Their bottom line: shrink the budgets; demand measurable outcomes; limit sprawling mandates; and stop pretending that a building on the East River can manufacture harmony from intractable geopolitics. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/09/1165924
From the Inside of the Multilateralist’s Bench
The UN as imperfect rope-thrower in a drowning world.
If you stood with the UN loyalists in the gallery, a different ledger dominated. They cite what only the UN can do: set norms, convene rivals, provide legal forums, and deliver aid at scale across borders. They remind us that in Namibia, Cambodia, Mozambique, El Salvador, Tajikistan and more, peacekeeping helped wind down conflicts and midwife elections; that the ICJ and ICC—though separate from the Secretariat—give victims a place to stand and shout the law’s name; that children get vaccines; that refugees find tents instead of empty hands. Strip funding now, they argue, and you don’t reform the UN—you break the last universal tool kit we have. Human Rights Watch+4United Nations Peacekeeping+4United Nations Peacekeeping+4
This week, that argument walked into the hall on two legs: Zelensky asked for Tomahawks to force Russia toward peace. King Abdullah pleaded Gaza’s case to a world too numb to count the dead. The Netanyahu showdown, and the ICC warrants shadowing travel plans across Europe, showed how law and politics now collide under the UN’s floodlights. And in the background, the cash crisis grew—U.S. arrears mounting, China’s dues delayed, controllers shaving operational budgets, and staff bracing for cuts. The institution’s defenders warned: starve this thing, and you starve the people behind the acronyms—WFP rations, UNICEF clinics, UNHCR tents. Congress.gov+5Reuters+5YouTube+5
Their bottom line: fix it, yes—but fund it. Because when the rope is shorter, more people drown.
The Silent Story
What the founders knew in 1945, and what we are forgetting in 2025.
Here’s the part that didn’t fit neatly into the sound bites: why the UN exists at all. In 1945, the world’s wisdom was paid for in blood. Between 70 and 85 million human beings died in WWII—soldiers, civilians, the starved and bombed and disappeared. The Soviet Union lost on the order of 24 million people. The Holocaust murdered around six million Jews, with millions more persecuted and killed across occupied Europe. Of roughly 18 million men who served in the Wehrmacht, an estimated 5.3 million died—meaning most German soldiers survived, but the losses were unspeakable. Japan lost about 2.1 million service members; depending on how you count those mobilized, something like two-thirds to three-quarters returned home, many through a massive Allied-run repatriation operation that moved millions in barely a year. The UN’s founders knew what unbridled state power and collapsed rules produced, hence Hammarskjöld’s line about hell. Reddit+6Wikipedia+6National WWII Museum+6
That memory is the quiet counterweight to today’s budget fights and walkouts: an argument not for naïveté, but for maintenance—of norms, phone lines, and last-resort rooms where enemies still talk.
How the UN Works (and Where It Stalls)
- General Assembly (193 members): one state, one vote; sets norms and budgets; passes non-binding resolutions.
- Security Council (15 members): five permanent members with vetoes (U.S., U.K., France, China, Russia); ten elected members; adopts binding resolutions on peace and security—unless a veto stops the clock.
- Peacekeeping: authorized by the Council, funded separately from the regular budget, and now under pressure as big donors wobble.
- Courts: The ICJ (UN’s principal judicial organ) settles state-to-state disputes and issues provisional measures (e.g., orders in South Africa v. Israel); the ICC is independent but often entwined with UN politics (e.g., warrants related to Gaza), shaping travel and diplomacy. Wikipedia+5Security Council Report+5Congress.gov+5
What Was Said This Week — A Quick Roll-Up
- United States: Trump’s address cast climate policy as a “con job,” slammed migration, and warned rivals with tariff threats—signaling a narrower, transactional approach to multilateralism. Reuters
- Ukraine: Zelensky used the sidelines to seek Tomahawks—a bid to change battlefield math and pressure Moscow toward talks. Reuters
- Jordan: King Abdullah’s Gaza remarks reprised his years-long warning about mass displacement and urgency for a political horizon. YouTube+1
- Israel: Netanyahu vowed to “finish the job” in Gaza; over 100 diplomats walked out, underscoring diplomatic isolation and legal headwinds. The Guardian+1
The Money Question: How Much Could the UN Lose Without U.S. Support?
The U.S. assessed share is ~22% of the UN regular budget (about $3.7B in UN FY2025) and ~26% of peacekeeping. If Washington withholds or eliminates these payments, the near-term hole is in the hundreds of millions—and larger when arrears stack. Controllers have already flagged operational cuts and liquidity stress as China’s payments delay and U.S. arrears grow. Translation: hiring freezes, program slowdowns, and fewer field operations unless other donors backfill. Congress.gov+2ICAEW+2
Key Takeaways
- The UN turned 80 amid funding shocks and hard rhetoric, but it remains the only universal forum with legal and humanitarian reach. Congress.gov
- Narrative split: Sovereigntists demand leaner budgets and fewer mandates; multilateralists argue cuts will cost lives and future stability. Reuters+1
- This week’s speeches hardened positions on Gaza and Ukraine, while legal processes (ICJ/ICC) reshaped diplomacy. Wikipedia+3The Guardian+3Reuters+3
- The founders’ memory—70–85 million dead in WWII—is the silent argument for keeping the rope intact. Wikipedia
Questions This Article Answers
- Who actually said “save humanity from hell”? Dag Hammarskjöld, UN Secretary-General (1953–61). United Nations
- What share of UN funding comes from the U.S.? ~22% of the regular budget; ~26% of peacekeeping (assessed). Congress.gov+1
- What were the UNGA 80th highlights? Trump’s combative speech; Zelensky’s weapons ask; King Abdullah on Gaza; Netanyahu’s “finish the job” vow and walkouts. The Guardian+3Reuters+3Reuters+3
- What did the founders witness in 1945? WWII’s mass death: 70–85 million total; ~24 million Soviets; 6 million Jews murdered. Wikipedia+2National WWII Museum+2
- Did most German and Japanese soldiers return home? Yes—roughly 70%+ of Germans (18M served; ~5.3M dead) and about two-thirds to three-quarters of Japanese depending on mobilization counts; post-war repatriation moved ~5M home within 15 months. Reddit+3Wikipedia+3Wikipedia+3
