Trump’s speech was more than a provocation; it was a stark marker of Washington’s growing estrangement from multilateralism, signalling to allies and adversaries alike that the world’s largest economy was unwilling to shoulder the responsibilities of collective climate action. But is this the kind of shared vision and prosperity the UN was founded upon? Is this how the world is expected to function through unilateral dictates of a fading unipolar order rather than through collective responsibility? And can humanity afford to ignore Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam the eternal wisdom of India that reminds us the world is one family at a moment when climate chaos and conflict demand unity above all?
Dr. Arvind Kumar*
The 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly opened in New York with both pageantry and poignancy, marking eight decades since the founding of an institution that promised humanity a bulwark against war, poverty, and injustice. The haunting refrain lingers: For what purpose does the United Nations convene us here? To lament our divisions or to chart a course where “better together” is not a theme but a survival imperative? The answer, as always, rests not in the speeches made but in the actions that follow.
Annalena Baerbock, the German stateswoman presiding over this historic session, cast the theme in luminous terms: “Better Together: 80 years and more for peace, development and human rights” or Vasudhaiv Kutumbkam as we call in India. Yet the words immediately begged the question: are we, in fact, better together or are we together??
The debates quickly revealed a house divided, with the Global North reluctant to assume full responsibility for leading the world on equitable terms, particularly by resisting the polluter-pay principle that lies at the heart of climate justice. In doing so, the North appeared out of step with the very soul of the Sustainable Development Goals ensuring that no one is left behind thereby sharpening the fracture lines between developed and developing nations.
The opening notes from Secretary-General António Guterres were as stark as they were sobering. Declaring that the world has entered “an age of reckless disruption and relentless human suffering,” he lamented that the pillars of peace and progress are “buckling under the weight of impunity, inequality, and indifference.” What does it mean when civilians are bombed in Gaza, starved in Sudan, displaced in Ukraine, while international law is trampled with brazen regularity? What does it mean when the climate itself rebels; fires raging, floods surging, record heat searing? The United Nations turned 80 not with triumphalism but with trepidation.
Nations at the Crossroads
The mosaic of speeches that followed was nothing short of a clash of worldviews. At the center of the storm was U.S. President Donald Trump, whose return to the UN stage was anything but conciliatory. In a marathon address that ran nearly three times his allotted slot, he ridiculed the United Nations as a forum of “strongly worded letters” and stunned delegates by announcing a second withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, dismissing climate change action as a “con job.”
Trump’s speech was more than a provocation; it was a stark marker of Washington’s growing estrangement from multilateralism, signalling to allies and adversaries alike that the world’s largest economy was unwilling to shoulder the responsibilities of collective climate action. But is this the kind of shared vision and prosperity the UN was founded upon? Is this how the world is expected to function through unilateral dictates of a fading unipolar order rather than through collective responsibility? And can humanity afford to ignore Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam the eternal wisdom of India that reminds us the world is one family at a moment when climate chaos and conflict demand unity above all?
China’s President Xi Jinping, by contrast, presented what many observers deemed the most consequential pledge of the session: cutting net emissions by 7–10% by 2035, with renewables scaled to six times their 2020 levels. “Green and low-carbon transformation is the trend of the times,” he insisted, casting Beijing as both the largest polluter and, paradoxically, a potential climate saviour.
Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva struck the dual chord declaring that COP30 in Belém will be the “COP of truth,” he warned that without transparent Nationally Determined Contributions, “we will walk blindfolded toward the abyss.” Lula pledged cuts up to 67 percent of Brazil’s emissions while vowing to defend democratic institutions against authoritarian incursions. France’s Emmanuel Macron took the multilateralist mantle, pointing to the new NICE Treaty on oceans as proof that international cooperation still breathes.
He called for similar mobilization to end plastic pollution and integrate biodiversity credits into the financial mainstream. The United Kingdom, positioned itself as the patient weaver of coalitions from peacebuilding in Somalia to humanitarian relief in Gaza and Ukraine. Japan’s Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba posed perhaps the most haunting question: “For what purpose does the United Nations convene us here, today for a nation scarred by nuclear attacks, his concern that “the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons is being lowered” carried chilling resonance.
Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, weary yet resolute, declared that “weapons decide who survives.” He accused Moscow of plotting turmoil in Moldova and urged Europe to act pre-emptively. Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian countered by accusing the West of betrayal while denying any nuclear ambitions.
And then came India. Represented by External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar, India positioned itself as the tribune of the Global South. His five-point plan called for climate justice tailored to developing nations, equitable governance of artificial intelligence, resilient supply chains, South-South cooperation, and reform of multilateral institutions he deemed “starved of resources and rendered ineffective.” India’s question was pointed: in a world fragmented by war and climate chaos, will the Global South remain a rhetorical bloc, or finally wield collective weight in shaping outcomes?
Beyond words, India sought to demonstrate through action be it through the International Solar Alliance, the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure, or the LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment) movement that it is possible to chart pathways of growth that are sustainable, inclusive, and globally relevant. In doing so, India invoked the ancient wisdom of the world is one family as a guiding principle for collective progress, offering a model of leadership that places cooperation above coercion and shared responsibility above narrow self-interest. Yet this wisdom, though universal and timeless, remains unacknowledged by much of the Global North, which continues to shy away from the truth that the world is one, and that its future must be shared by all.
Interwoven with the Planet
Though geopolitics animated the headlines, the atmosphere of the 80th UNGA was dominated by the drumbeat of climate. Secretary-General Guterres demanded a credible roadmap to mobilize $1.3 trillion annually for developing countries by 2035 and called for an immediate doubling of adaptation finance to $40 billion this year. He insisted that while the 1.5°C target is still technically alive, “the window is closing rapidly.” The metaphor of climate as a common enemy was evident, yet the arsenal against it remains unevenly distributed. Wealthy nations continue to default on their climate finance promises, while developing countries argue rightly that they cannot leapfrog to green economies without support. Xi’s call for developed countries to lead in reductions while transferring finance and technology echoed this asymmetry. Yet the hiccups are glaring. Geopolitical rivalries, unilateral withdrawals, and rising nuclear rhetoric suffocate the collaborative spirit. For every dollar the world invests in peace, Guterres noted, $750 is squandered on weapons. Is this not the very definition of moral bankruptcy?
Way forward
As experts insist, lies in two cardinal shifts. Multilateral reform cannot remain a talking point; it must redistribute voice and vote, granting the Global South meaningful representation. Climate action must be reframed not as an act of benevolence but of enlightened self-interest. In a burning world, there are no bystanders. The 80th session of the UN General Assembly, was a mirror held up to humanity. It reflected both the fragility of our institutions and the resilience of our aspirations. Shared responsibility, sustainable development, and inclusive growth must become the operational ethos of multilateralism, not aspirational slogans. Reforming budgets to match mandates, strengthening accountability mechanisms to restore credibility, and ensuring fair representation for the Global South are indispensable if the UN is to remain legitimate. These are not optional add-ons but structural imperatives. Without such recalibration, the risk is stark: the very institution conceived to avert catastrophe may find itself overtaken by it, rendered irrelevant at the moment humanity most needs it.
*Editor, Focus Global Reporter
