UN at 80: a Mixed Legacy of Highs and Lows

The venue for the high-level meeting of the General Assembly, September 23-30, to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations. The list of speakers includes 89 Heads of State, 5 Vice-Presidents, one Crown Prince and 43 Heads of Government. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 23 2025 – As the UN commemorates its 80th anniversary, at a high-level meeting of 138 world political leaders, one lingering question remains: is there any reason for a celebration– judging by the UN’s mostly failed political performances over the last eight decades?

When he remotely addressed the Security Council in April 2022, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was dead on target: “Where is the peace that the United Nations was created to guarantee? And “where is the security that the Security Council was supposed to guarantee?”

The UN apparently failed on both counts.

But the UN’s declining role in geo-politics, however, has been compensated for, by its increasingly significant performance as a massive global relief organization, providing humanitarian aid to millions of people caught in military conflicts worldwide.

Still, politics, seems to be the primary focus of the 80th anniversary.

Dr. Stephen Zunes, a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, who has written extensively about the United Nations, told IPS: “As someone who has defended the United Nations and emphasized its successes ever since I first visited the UN Headquarters in 1964 at age 8, I have never been more pessimistic.”

The United Nations is no more effective than its member states, particularly the more powerful ones, allow it to be, he pointed out.

“Things have steadily gotten worse since the end of the Cold War. The U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have demonstrated the failure of the UN’s most fundamental mission of preventing aggressive wars”.

During these past two years, he argued, the United States has been the sole negative vote on no less than six UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, thereby vetoing the measure. And, given that four of these were under the Biden administration, it underscores how efforts to undermine the UN’s authority in ending armed conflict is bipartisan.

Even one of the UN’s greatest successes, overseeing decolonization, said Dr Zunes, has been compromised by its inability to force Morocco to allow the people of the former Spanish colony of Western Sahara their right to self-determination, with the United States and an increasing number of European countries backing the Moroccans’ illegal takeover.

“The United States played a disproportionate role in the writing of the UN Charter and subsequent treaties, such as the Fourth Geneva Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United Nations is expected to uphold.”

Yet in recent years, the United States–under both Republican and Democratic administrations–has increasingly been attacking the United Nations and its agencies, including its judicial bodies, when it has sought to enforce its charter and international humanitarian law, declared Dr Zunes, who has served as a senior policy analyst for the Foreign Policy in Focus project of the Institute for Policy Studies.

Dr Richard J. Ponzio, Director, Global Governance, Justice & Security Program and Senior Fellow at the Washinton-based Stimson Center, told IPS the United Nations, besides representing the world’s most universal and hence legitimate international organization, has demonstrated time and again its indispensability in the areas of peacebuilding, fighting extreme poverty, and increasingly in the areas of climate action and digital (including AI) governance too.

Felix Dodds, Stakeholder Forum Fellow, told IPS in this time of uncertainty, when the world has not been so insecure since the old War period, “we need to bolster multilateralism and ensure that we learn the lessons from history. Working together, we will build a more just, equitable and sustainable world for not only us but for future generations,” he said.

Amitabh Behar, Oxfam International’s Executive Director, said: “As leaders come together for UNGA80, the UN is under tremendous strain: critical funding has been slashed as needs rise, and its ability to deliver peace and security has been called into question, with some permanent members of the Security Council complicit in violating international humanitarian law.

“At its 80th anniversary, governments have a unique and urgent opportunity to lay the foundation for the reform direly needed to strengthen the UN so it is equipped to lead us in tackling the polycrisis we face – extreme and growing climate catastrophes and inequality, attacks on democracy and rights, the erosion of women’s and gender rights and deadly conflicts and extreme hunger, among others.

“In spite of it all, we must remember the power of collective action – we know that our best chance is together. This week at the UN, organizations like Oxfam are here to voice our concerns, offer our partnership and solidarity, and outline our own solutions.

“Now we need leaders to boldly share their own vision for a secure and peaceful way forward – and what they will do to fight for it with us.”

But what was the state of the world before the creation of the United Nations?

As Annalena Baerbock, President of the General Assembly told delegates, September 22: “Nations in ruins; More than 70 million dead; Two world wars in a single generation; the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust, and 72 territories still under colonialism”.

“This was our world 80-years ago,” she said. “A desperate world grasping for any sign of hope’. But courageous leaders gave that hope through the Charter of the United Nations.

When signed, on 26 June 1945, it was more than yet another empty political declaration, she pointed out. It was a promise from leaders to their peoples, and from nations to one another, that humanity had learned from its darkest chapters.

“It was a pledge — not to deliver us to heaven — but to never again be dragged into hell by the forces of hatred and unchecked ambition,” Baerbock said.

Still, “We stand at a similar crossroads. We see children without parents, searching for food in the ruins of Gaza. The ongoing war in Ukraine. Sexual violence in Sudan. Gangs terrorizing people in Haiti. Un-filtered hatred online. And floods and droughts all over the world”.

Is this the world envisioned in our Charter she asked.

In a statement released last week, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group said it is far from the first time in the post-Cold War era that the UN has gone through troughs of doubt and division.

Similar periods of uncertainty followed the peacekeeping failures in the Balkans and Rwanda in the 1990s, as well as the debates about the 2003 Iraq war.

But while those were bruising eras, the organisation’s members managed to rally, reconcile and institute important reforms on each occasion. It is not clear they will be able or indeed want to do so this time.

While UN members will attend a special Summit of the Future to discuss reforming the organisation, in addition to their usual high-level week commitments, in September, major transformations of the UN’s peace and security work are unlikely to emerge any time soon, the Group warned.

Negotiations leading up to the summit have, if anything, served to highlight the lack of common vision among states for the future of multilateralism

Meanwhile, UN’s efforts at providing humanitarian aid are led by multiple UN agencies such as the World Food Program (WFP), the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN children’s fund UNICEF, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) , the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), among others.

These agencies, which have saved millions of lives, continue to provide food, medical care and shelter, to those trapped in war-ravaged countries, mostly in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, while following closely in the footsteps of international relief organizations, including Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children, international Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), CARE International, Action Against Hunger, World Vision and Relief Without Borders, among others.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 


!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

Beware Independent Central Banks

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa, Sep 23 2025 – US President Trump’s snide barbs against his appointee, US Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Jerome Powell, have revived support for central bank independence – long abused by powerful finance interests against growth and equity.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Independent central banks are supposed to improve the quality, equity, and growth impact of monetary policy. Instead, they have primarily served powerful financial interests, with contractionary and regressive effects leading to slower, unequal growth.

Independent of whom?
Central banks were established to determine monetary policy to shape financial conditions to achieve national economic objectives.

In recent decades, the new conventional policy wisdom has been that independent central banks should set monetary policy. Thus, they have been influenced by powerful financial interests, typically foreign, in smaller, open developing countries.

In the last half-century, many governments have changed laws under the influence of international finance to legislate central bank independence from governments of the day, especially the executive and legislative branches.

Meanwhile, most central banks have come to equate financial stability with price stability as ‘inflation targeting’ became the leading policy fetish.

When inflation rises, central banks raise interest rates, which reduces economic activity. However, some central banks of open economies, especially those pegging to major international currencies, target the exchange rate.

Thus, reducing inflation by conventional means worsens contractionary pressures. Many governments now face the threat of ‘stagflation’, i.e., recession with inflation. Central banks recognise this trade-off regarding how much growth has to decline for inflation to fall.

With interest rate management as their primary policy tool, central banks may raise interest rates in anticipation of inflation, despite its adverse consequences for growth, income and employment.

Such contractionary effects have reduced wages and jobs worldwide. Only a few, mainly large developed economies, have had other priorities, such as growth or employment.

Ironically, the end of the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rates regime and the counter-revolution against Keynesian economics from the late 1970s ensured the irrelevance of Milton Friedman’s monetarist emphasis on central banks’ money supply targeting.

Worsening inequity
Central banks worldwide respond to and anticipate inflation by raising interest rates to curb inflation.

‘Inflation targeting’ causes significant collateral damage, typically reducing growth, income and employment. Poor households’ incomes are likelier to fall, especially with labour-displacing technological change, such as mechanisation, automation, and artificial intelligence (AI) applications.

As unemployment increases, poor workers are more likely to lose jobs, especially hurting poorer families. Banks have typically profited handsomely from such situations, although most people are worse off.

With lending rates rising, banks get even more interest as borrowing rates lag, not increasing as much. Max Lawson cites an IMF study finding that the adverse effects of higher interest rates are “not counterbalanced by the positive effects of lower interest rates.”

The US Fed strongly influences central banks worldwide. Higher Fed interest rates from 2023, in response to minor inflationary pressures, have hurt developing countries, especially the poorest.

As most Global South companies and governments have incurred dollar-denominated debt, countries’ central banks raised interest rates to deter capital outflows.

Quantitative easing
‘Quantitative easing’ (QE) refers to central bank interventions buying financial assets. Such interventions were sought as it is difficult for central banks to cut interest rates below zero to revive economies. QE seemed to fit the bill.

Commercial banks typically get more for their deposits with the central bank when it raises interest rates. Thus, they receive considerable additional windfall interest payments from the central bank risk-free.

QE programmes seek to raise asset prices. Central banks buy assets such as government debt, inducing private investors to acquire riskier assets. US government debt is still the most important financial asset in the international monetary system.

Thus, QE tries to induce growth, presuming earlier contractionary policies will continue to curb or ‘moderate’ inflation. This has even been justified as prudent, as inflation rates were below target despite interest rates near zero.

Major Western central banks adopted QE following the 2008-09 global financial crisis. Many governments spent even more in response to the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020.

Such efforts sought to counter the downward spiral of falling financial asset prices. The US Fed’s QE intervention involved ‘portfolio rebalancing’. It bought over $600 billion in US Treasury bonds and almost $300 billion in mortgage-backed securities.

Wealth is concentrated in relatively few hands in most societies. Jordi Bosch showed the top ten per cent holding 11 times more wealth than the bottom half in the euro zone, while the bottom fifth had more debt than assets.

QE interventions increase financial asset prices, enriching owners, especially the rich, who have more assets. As prices rise, their worth generally increases. Hence, such central bank interventions further enrich the already wealthy.

As the world struggles to cope with challenges posed by the current conjuncture, we must not jump out of the frying pan back into the fire kindled by central bank independence.

IPS UN Bureau

 


!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);