The UN: The Past, Present, and Future (2)

Annalena Baerbock opened the 80th UN General Assembly not with celebration, but with solemn urgency. She painted a harrowing picture of global suffering—from orphans in Gaza eating sand, to elderly women in Ukraine hiding from drones, to children in Haiti fearing gang violence. She reminded the Assembly that for every headline-grabbing tragedy, countless others are forgotten.

Rather than condemning the UN itself, Baerbock argued that the institution’s failures stem from member states’ unwillingness to uphold the Charter. She defended the UN’s legacy, citing its role in education, food aid, and global health, and warned that abandoning its mission would allow evil to prevail.

She invoked the UN’s founding amid war and colonialism, calling on leaders to rediscover the courage of those who built peace from ruins. True leadership, she said, is not about domination but about lifting others up—for mutual benefit and even self-interest.

Baerbock stressed that global crises—from pandemics to climate change to AI—require collective action. She called for reform, not ritual, and challenged member states to support a UN that is agile, effective, and inclusive. She also pointedly noted that in 80 years, the UN has never appointed a female Secretary-General, urging reflection and change.

Her closing message was clear: the UN is not a relic, but a life insurance policy for humanity. The theme “Better Together” is not just a slogan—it’s a call to action for the next eight decades.

Following Annalena Baerbock’s address, the floor was taken by the President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and subsequently by President Donald Trump.

Donald Trump addressed the 80th United Nations General Assembly with an assertive and critical tone toward the UN, many world leaders, and international norms. He began by claiming that the United States is now “the hottest country anywhere in the world” and emphasised the country’s strength in military power, borders, and global standing.

He argued that the United Nations is not fulfilling its potential. Trump accused the institution of issuing strong-sounding statements but failing to follow up with meaningful action. He criticised its support for what he described as “uncontrolled migration”, suggesting that this has harmed Western countries. 

Besides ranting about broken escalators and teleprompters, Trump also slammed environmental issues. Trump used harsh language. He called global environmental initiatives a “scam” and “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world”. He urged nations to move away from renewable energy policies, arguing they are economically damaging, and to return to using traditional energy sources. He also criticised European countries for buying oil and energy from Russia while simultaneously opposing Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

Concerning the war in Ukraine, Trump warned that if Russia did not agree to peace, the United States was ready to impose “very strong” tariffs. He urged other countries, particularly those in Europe, to join in similar economic penalties against Russia. 

On Israel and Palestine, Trump rejected efforts by some nations to recognise a Palestinian state unilaterally, saying that such actions would reward Hamas for its attacks. He reiterated his demand for the immediate release of all hostages held by Hamas.

Trump also sharply criticised migration policies, asserting that uncontrolled immigration is leading to the decline of countries, particularly in Europe. He called for stronger borders and stricter enforcement, arguing that some international programs, with the United Nations’ involvement, were facilitating illegal or undesirable migration. [Towards the end of his address, Trump softened his critique somewhat in a later bilateral meeting with UN Secretary-General António Guterres, expressing that the U.S. is behind the United Nations “100%” because it has great potential for peacekeeping, despite his disagreements with certain policies.]

After President Trump concluded his address, senior European leaders and officials reacted publicly and firmly, rejecting his characterisation of climate action as a “con job” and insisting that the Green transition would remain central to European policy; several European statements and commentary framed his remarks as a challenge to multilateral norms and underlined that abandoning or delaying decarbonisation would be both environmentally harmful and economically short-sighted. 

At United Nations headquarters, the tone from Secretary-General António Guterres and senior UN staff was measured but clear: while the UN can convene, mediate and mobilise international cooperation, it cannot impose decisions on sovereign states, and tackling transnational problems — from climate change to mass displacement — requires political will and collective action rather than unilateral gestures. Reporters covering the immediate aftermath noted that Guterres emphasised these institutional limits even as he defended the value of multilateral engagement. 

Governments across the Middle East expressed alarm and concern about parts of Mr. Trump’s speech that touched on Gaza and migration, warning that rhetoric perceived to sanction forced relocations or punitive population movements could violate international humanitarian law and risk further destabilising an already fragile regional situation; early live coverage and regional reporting captured diplomats’ brisk objections and calls for solutions grounded in law and protection of civilians.

Moscow and Beijing—while differing in emphasis—used the immediate window after the speech to argue for stronger multilateral diplomacy and to cast doubt on unilateral prescriptions, with Russian commentary particularly sceptical of A m r. Trump’s framing of the Ukraine conflict and some state media and analysts, suggested the speech was as much aimed at domestic audiences as at building international consensus.

International scientists, environmental non-governmental organisations and independent fact-checkers responded within hours with detailed rebuttals to specific assertions about climate science and renewable energy, arguing that the president’s “con job” line misrepresented the scientific consensus and that the economic case for many renewable technologies is supported by current data; mainstream outlets ran rapid analyses that highlighted factual errors and sketched the likely diplomatic and policy fallout from the address. 

So, why is Brazil always the first speaker at the UN General Assembly?

Brazil has the honour of being the first country to speak at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) because of a longstanding tradition that originated in the early years of the UN. Back in the 1950s, when the UN was still young, no country wanted to be the first to address the assembly. Brazil, however, volunteered to take on this role and has continued to do so ever since, marking the beginning of each General Debate session with its speech. This act of volunteering and consistency earned Brazil the unofficial but enduring right to open the debates, a role it has maintained since the 10th session in 1955.

Following Brazil, the United States traditionally speaks second due to its status as the host country of the UN Headquarters in New York. The speaking order after these two countries is then arranged based on a complex set of factors, including the rank of the official speaker (head of state, head of government, or minister), the order of requests to speak, and geographic balance to ensure fair representation across regions.

So, Brazil speaks first because it bravely stepped forward when others hesitated in the beginning, and the United States speaks second because it hosts the UN. This tradition has been maintained as a ceremonial and diplomatic practice, giving some historical charm to the proceedings of the UN General Assembly each year.

Indonesia's position as the third speaker at the United Nations General Assembly this year is a reflection of both respect and recognition of its growing role in the international community, especially as a leader of the Global South. 

Indonesia’s placement as the third speaker this year signifies a mark of esteem and appreciation for the country's contributions to global peace, cooperation, and development. The decision also underlines Indonesia’s consistent advocacy for reform of global governance and its commitment to multilateralism. Indonesia seeks to reaffirm its leadership in representing developing nations and its active involvement in pressing global issues, such as peace efforts in conflict zones and sustainable development goals.

The arrangement of speaker order after Brazil and the US involves various considerations, including the level of representation (whether head of state or other officials), the timing of requests, and the need for geographic balance to fairly represent all regions of the world. Thus, Indonesia’s third speaking slot is both a diplomatic honour and a strategic acknowledgement of its importance on the world stage.

President Prabowo began his statement by invoking a spirit of unity beyond divisions of race, religion, and nationality, affirming that despite our differences, we convene as one human family under shared rights and dignity. He recalled the role of the United Nations and its agencies (such as UNICEF, FAO, and WHO) in supporting Indonesia during its early development, noting that Indonesia today stands on the threshold of greater equality and prosperity thanks in part to international solidarity.

He emphasised that Indonesia remains committed to internationalism and multilateralism, and that in a world plagued by conflict, injustice, and uncertainty, silence is not an option. He called for collective action and insisted that peace and prosperity not be privileges of a few but rights for all—especially the weak and marginalised.

On the matter of conflict, Prabowo explicitly addressed the crisis in Gaza and the plight of Palestinians. He rejected injustice and called for recognition of Palestinian rights. He stated that lasting peace could only be achieved through a two-state solution, but also insisted that Israel’s security must be guaranteed, arguing that peace without mutual security is hollow. He urged immediate humanitarian assistance to Gaza, pointing to the suffering, starvation, trauma, and present danger facing millions of innocent civilians. 

Further, President Prabowo stated that Indonesia would carry its share of the burden in peacekeeping operations: he said the country was prepared to deploy as many as 20,000 or more personnel under UN mandates to places such as Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, or Libya to enforce peace where necessary. He added that Indonesia was also willing to offer financial support for such missions.

Turning to climate and food security, Prabowo acknowledged that Indonesia is already witnessing the impacts of climate change, including rising sea levels in its capital region. He described Indonesia’s plan to build a 480-kilometre sea wall, reforest more than 12 million hectares of degraded land, and shift decisively toward renewable energy. He noted that Indonesia is self-sufficient in rice production and is exporting rice to other nations in need, including to Palestine. He pledged that most new power generation capacity would come from renewables, with a commitment to net zero emissions by 2060 (or sooner if feasible).

In closing, President Prabowo appealed for moral responsibility and statesmanship. He called on world leaders to overcome suspicion, hate, and violence, and to act with wisdom, restraint, humility, and fraternity. He ended his speech with a multifaith and inclusive salutation—“Wassalamu’alaikum, Shalom, Om Shanti,” among others—and reaffirmed Indonesia’s solidarity with Palestine and its belief that peace must be built with justice and security for all. 

There have already been both appreciations and critiques of President Prabowo’s speech at the 80th UN General Assembly. President Prabowo’s address received warm praise from the Indonesian government and some international quarters, with the official Cabinet Secretariat noting that his speech “earned international praise” and was seen as a firm signal for solidarity and greater UN activism.  In particular, world leaders such as Jordan’s King Abdullah II and Brazil’s President Lula da Silva were reported to have congratulated him in person, indicating a positive reception among peers.

On the other hand, critics have raised concerns about aspects of his rhetoric. Some analysts have questioned his proposal for deploying up to 20,000 peacekeepers, asking whether Indonesia has the logistical, financial, and political capacity to carry out such missions responsibly. Others argue that his stance on conditional recognition of Israel—insisting that Israel must guarantee its security before Indonesia would establish diplomatic ties—risks undermining Indonesia’s longstanding pro-Palestinian positioning and may be seen domestically as diluting a principled stand. Moreover, some observers have cautioned that reiterating the two-state solution without pressing for mechanisms of accountability may render parts of the speech symbolic without sufficient force to change realities on the ground.

President Prabowo Subianto's statement about proposing that Indonesia would recognise Israel if it acknowledges Palestinian statehood has sparked significant criticism from various quarters.

Amnesty International Indonesia, through its Executive Director Usman Hamid, criticised the speech for its lack of direct condemnation of Israel's actions in Palestine. Hamid argued that the use of the term "catastrophe" instead of "genocide" potentially obscures Israel's responsibility in the ongoing humanitarian crisis. He called on the Indonesian government to demand an end to Israel's military occupation and the dismantling of illegal settlements. 

The Baitul Maqdis Institute also expressed concern, stating that Prabowo's recognition of Israel could undermine Indonesia's longstanding support for Palestine. They argued that such recognition might be perceived as legitimising an occupying power, which could be detrimental to the Palestinian cause. 

Additionally, Indonesian social media users have voiced strong objections, with some accusing Prabowo of betraying the Palestinian struggle. For instance, public figures like Wanda Hamidah have publicly criticised the president's stance, labelling Israel's actions as genocidal and questioning the appropriateness of Indonesia recognising Israel under such circumstances. 

While President Prabowo's proposal aims to promote peace through a two-state solution, it has faced backlash for perceived insensitivity to the Palestinian plight and concerns over the implications of recognising Israel without addressing its actions in the occupied territories.

The proposed 480-kilometre sea wall along Java's northern coast has sparked significant debate among experts, environmentalists, and local communities. While the project aims to protect millions of residents from flooding and land subsidence, critics argue that it may not address the root causes of these issues and could lead to unintended environmental and social consequences.

Experts from institutions like the Indonesia Water Institute (IWI) and IPB University have raised concerns about the project's feasibility and environmental impact. They argue that the sea wall might not effectively address land subsidence, the primary cause of coastal flooding in the region. Additionally, the construction process, including dredging and reclamation, could increase water turbidity, damage fish habitats, and disrupt mangrove ecosystems 

Environmental organisations such as the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (WALHI) and the People's Coalition for Fisheries Justice (KIARA) have criticised the project for prioritising large-scale infrastructure over sustainable, community-based solutions. They argue that the sea wall could exacerbate regional inequality and add to Indonesia's debt burden.

Local communities, particularly fisherfolk, have expressed concerns about the project's impact on their livelihoods. A survey by Destructive Fishing Watch (DFW) found that 56.2% of the public opposes the plan, citing fears of environmental degradation and loss of livelihoods. While the sea wall project aims to protect coastal communities from environmental threats, it faces criticism for potentially overlooking the underlying causes of flooding, its environmental impact, and the social implications for local populations.

In sum, while many appreciated the boldness, commitment to multilateralism, and moral tone of his speech, critics focus on feasibility, tactical consistency, and the risk of symbolic gestures outpacing material impact. President Trump has expressed positive remarks regarding President Prabowo Subianto's speech at the United Nations General Assembly. During a multilateral meeting on the Middle East in New York, President Trump praised President Prabowo's passionate address, acknowledging the assertiveness and energy with which he delivered his message. Trump noted that Prabowo's communication style effectively captured the attention of the audience, highlighting the impactful nature of his speech. In a separate interaction, President Trump conveyed his appreciation directly to President Prabowo, stating, "Your speech rocked the UN podium." This comment underscores Trump's recognition of the strength and influence of Prabowo's address on the international stage.

Because the 80th UN General Assembly (UNGA) is still ongoing (from 23 to 29 September 2025 for the General Debate) at the time of writing, the full picture of all issues, debates, and final solutions is not entirely settled. However, based on current reporting and official UN sources, I can highlight the prominent issues that have surfaced so far, what is being debated, and the kinds of solutions or proposals being floated. 

Throughout the General Debate and the wider sessions of the 80th UNGA, several issues have dominated discussion—including the ongoing wars (notably Ukraine and Gaza), the challenge of climate change, institutional reform of the UN, migration and displacement, recognition of Palestinian statehood, financing and funding shortfalls at the UN, and the governance of emerging technologies. The war in Ukraine has been frequently invoked by heads of state, with Ukraine’s president warning that his country may not be the only one targeted if the global community fails to defend the rules-based order. 

The Gaza conflict and the broader Israeli-Palestinian struggle have also loomed large, especially as multiple countries and blocs simultaneously expressed support for Palestinian recognition, criticised civilian suffering, and debated the legality and efficacy of unilateral recognition moves. 

Another central thread has been UN institutional reform, particularly under the “UN80” initiative. Participants are debating how the UN can become more efficient, responsive, and financially viable in the face of shrinking funding and increasing expectations. Proposals include reductions in secretariat staff, consolidating mandates, rationalising operations, and forging a clearer, more compelling narrative for why the UN matters today. 

Climate change remains a key battleground, with many speakers pushing for accelerated decarbonisation, greater support for adaptation and resilience in vulnerable countries, and more realistic burden-sharing. At the same time, some leaders have pushed back or expressed concerns about cost, equity, and energy transitions.

Migration and forced displacement have also surfaced strongly, especially as conflict, climate stress, and economic hardship drive large populations to move. Debates have focused on responsibility sharing, legal protections, and the root causes of migration.

Additionally, technology—particularly artificial intelligence and digital governance—has been mentioned as an emerging issue. While not dominating headlines, there are calls for frameworks to govern AI in ways that protect human rights and prevent misuse or inequality.

In terms of proposed solutions, leaders and delegates have floated several ideas: strengthening UN budgets by urging member states to pay dues and reduce withholding; making the UN more lean and performance-oriented via UN80 reforms; encouraging more equitable climate finance with robust support for developing countries; advocating for multilateral responses to conflicts and increasing mediation capacities; enhancing frameworks for refugee protection and migration management; and promoting international norms and regulation around AI and digital technologies.

As the session continues, many of these debates remain fluid, and success will depend on whether member states can find consensus among diverse priorities, power differentials, and resource constraints. The UN’s ability to deliver on its promises here will be a test of its relevance in this 80th year.

In reflecting upon the United Nations’ eighty-year journey, it becomes evident that the organisation has always walked a delicate tightrope between idealism and pragmatism. From its inception, the UN aimed to prevent the horrors of global conflict, yet it has consistently faced the challenge of reconciling diverse national interests with the pursuit of collective peace. Its history is therefore a tapestry of successes, compromises, and setbacks that illustrate both the potential and the limitations of multilateral diplomacy.

Today, the UN remains an essential platform for dialogue and cooperation, providing a forum for states, civil society, and international organisations to address crises ranging from armed conflicts to climate change. While its effectiveness is often questioned, particularly when confronted with entrenched political deadlocks, the very existence of this global forum fosters a shared vocabulary of rights, obligations, and responsibilities. The UN thus continues to shape international norms and influence policies across continents.

Looking to the future, the UN faces a rapidly evolving geopolitical and technological landscape. Climate crises, cyber threats, artificial intelligence, and global pandemics demand not only responsive governance but proactive strategies that anticipate emerging risks. The organisation must adapt, drawing upon both innovative diplomacy and the experience of its past to maintain relevance and credibility in a multipolar world.

Equally important is the need for inclusivity and equity. As debates over Security Council reform, representation, and funding continue, the UN must ensure that the voices of smaller states, marginalised populations, and youth are not merely symbolic but substantive. Empowering diverse stakeholders is essential to building legitimacy, resilience, and a sense of shared purpose in confronting global challenges.

Ultimately, the UN’s story is inseparable from humanity’s own trajectory. Its capacity to mediate conflict, promote development, and safeguard human rights depends upon the collective will of its members and the ethical commitment of leaders around the globe. The lessons of the past, the realities of the present, and the uncertainties of the future converge to remind us that the United Nations, imperfect though it may be, remains an indispensable beacon of hope, dialogue, and cooperation for generations to come.

[Part 1] 

Bahasa