---

In September 2025, the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York under the theme, “Better together: 80 years and more for peace, development and human rights.” Despite this hopeful framing, the atmosphere inside the General Assembly Hall reflected deep global divisions rather than unity. The proceedings revealed a world increasingly fractured by geopolitics. What unfolded was not a celebration of multilateral cooperation, but a confrontation between two competing visions of global order. On one side, Western-aligned states led by the United States and major European powers emphasized the importance of existing alliances, deterrence, and the defense of the so-called rules-based international order. On the other, a broad coalition from the Global South and the East, including China, Türkiye, and many nations from Africa and Latin America, called for a fundamental restructuring of global governance. They demanded fair representation, respect for sovereignty, and a shift away from militarization toward development. Together, these debates revealed an international system under intense strain.

The Western bloc centered its arguments on the war in Ukraine, framing it as an existential challenge to the UN Charter. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy delivered one of the most somber speeches of the session, reflecting Europe’s deepening insecurity. He argued that institutions meant to safeguard peace had failed, declaring that “there are no security guarantees except friends and weapons.” According to Zelenskyy, international law and cooperation no longer protect nations, leaving military strength as the deciding factor for survival. He warned that the world was entering the most dangerous arms race in history, intensified by artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons. Leaders from the European Union and the United Kingdom echoed these concerns, arguing that failure to stop Russia would invite aggression elsewhere. This Western position, however, was complicated by the address of former and current US President Donald Trump. While criticizing global instability, Trump presented a different diagnosis, asserting that peace had existed during his earlier leadership and had since collapsed. His emphasis on “America First” and peace through strength reinforced national interest over multilateralism, creating a mixed and sometimes contradictory Western message.

In contrast, leaders from the Global South and the East focused less on individual conflicts and more on structural injustice within the international system. Türkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan emerged as a leading voice, repeating his widely known declaration that “the world is bigger than five.” This statement directly challenged the legitimacy of the UN Security Council’s permanent membership and veto system, which Erdoğan and others described as outdated and unrepresentative. Leaders from South Africa, Brazil, and several Arab states linked this critique to ongoing conflicts in Gaza, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa, arguing that the UN’s responses were selective and shaped by power politics. They highlighted the stark contrast between swift Western support for Ukraine and long-standing inaction elsewhere. Chinese Premier Li Qiang reinforced this criticism by calling for rejection of Cold War style bloc politics and urging cooperation through development-focused initiatives. He promoted China’s Global Security and Global Development Initiatives as alternatives to Western-led frameworks that many see as conditional and exclusionary.

These contrasting positions exposed three major fault lines within the international community. The first concerned war and peace. Western states emphasized territorial sovereignty in Ukraine, while many Global South nations questioned why similar principles were applied unevenly across conflicts. The second fault line involved institutional reform. Calls to expand the UN Security Council grew louder, with countries such as India, Brazil, Japan, and Germany pressing for permanent seats, alongside broader demands to reform the World Bank and IMF. Developing nations argued that current financial institutions fail to address debt crises and climate vulnerability. Yet the permanent members of the Security Council showed little willingness to relinquish power. The third fault line was ideological. Western nations promoted liberal democracy and human rights, while others prioritized sovereignty, non-interference, and alternative development paths, often viewing Western advocacy as politically motivated.

For smaller and middle-power states, particularly in South Asia, the 80th UNGA underscored growing risks and limited opportunities. Pressure to align with either the United States or China has intensified, testing long-standing non-aligned principles. Countries like Bangladesh, guided by the idea of friendship to all and malice to none, now face challenges in keeping issues such as climate finance, migration, and humanitarian aid separate from great power rivalry. At the same time, this polarization opens space for diplomatic maneuvering. By engaging multiple blocs and building issue-based coalitions, South Asian states can amplify their voices on reform, climate justice, and development.

Ultimately, the 80th UN General Assembly concluded without a sense of shared purpose. Instead, it reflected a world in transition. The Western-led multilateral order that dominated after the Cold War is increasingly contested by rising powers and a more assertive Global South. The divide is not simply East versus West, but rather an old order confronting demands for reform. Critical questions remain unresolved. Can the UN adapt to shifting power realities and restore its legitimacy? Will the accelerating arms race define the coming era? And will global governance ever move toward a system where justice outweighs power? The 80th UNGA made clear that without meaningful reform, global divisions will deepen, leaving the world less stable and more insecure.

Md. Saiful Islam Shanto is a Research Intern at Centre for Governance Studies (CGS) 

Disclaimer: Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy