What’s at Stake at the 80th United Nations

World leaders arriving in New York for the United Nations’ 80th anniversary face a stark reality: war and impunity are on the march, not peace and cooperation. The United Nations was founded to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” but 2025 has seen more armed conflicts than at any time since 1945, with 59 active crises spanning multiple regions. These are not solely humanitarian emergencies; they are political emergencies that test the ability of the international community to act in a fragmented and competitive landscape. The UN’s annual theme, “Building our Future Together,” stands in sharp relief against a backdrop of diverging interests that threaten cohesive action on pressing threats.

Three pivotal tensions shape the current diplomatic landscape. First, a push within the UN system for bureaucratic reform aimed at efficiency—merging agencies, shrinking mandates, pruning headcounts—while potentially diluting the scope of protection for vulnerable populations. Second, the United States and some allies have signaled that parts of the UN system are beyond the pale, with actions such as withdrawing from the World Health Organization and rolling back climate commitments, undermining the very platform the UN offers for collective security. Third, Beijing’s posture has been ambiguous: President Xi has framed China as a bulwark of multilateralism while courting partners whose behavior violates multilateral norms. Taken together, these dynamics have left major flashpoints—Sudan, Gaza and Ukraine—without the steady, predictable backing many observers hoped would emerge from the world body. In the meantime, Sudan’s crisis continues to intensify, affecting roughly 30 million people, with humanitarian funding falling short by a large margin—less than a quarter of what is needed.

The UN’s mission has never been more tested by the limits of political goodwill. The secretary-general’s call for a treaty on weapons powered by artificial intelligence remains unresolved, and investment in pandemic preparedness has slipped back toward pre-crisis levels. In Sudan, the conflict has metastasized, drawing in neighboring countries and complicating mediation efforts. In Gaza, the humanitarian response remains hampered by access constraints and funding gaps. The scale of need is outsized: aid groups warn that even as resources exist globally, they are not moving quickly enough to reach the people who need help most. The moral authority of the UN charter, which enshrines human rights and collective responsibility, risks being hollowed out by vetoes, drift, and political compromise when decisive action is required.

Civil society has increasingly stepped into a leadership role, filling gaps where governments falter. Rather than treat symptoms, civil-society actors are testing models that can be scaled through official channels. In the Sahel and the Horn of Africa, a humanitarian program anchored by the International Rescue Committee (IRC) uses a simplified, integrated protocol for treating severe and moderate acute malnutrition. By collapsing separate treatment streams and products, the approach can cut costs by as much as 30% and reach millions more children with the same resources. In Gaza and other conflict zones, NGOs are negotiating access with all sides to deliver life-saving support where it is hardest to reach. Vaccination campaigns illustrate the potential for civil society to accelerate coverage through localized, negotiated access. The IRC’s REACH project, in partnership with GAVI, has delivered over 20 million vaccine doses to zero- and under-immunized children in four East African countries, bringing accessible vaccination rates from less than 20% to about 96% in target communities. The cost of a vaccine dose under this model is roughly $4, a reminder that scale can be affordable when governments, the private sector and civil society align around shared goals.

These examples show not a universal remedy, but a proof of concept: when civil society is enabled rather than constrained by the aid system, proven interventions can be scaled to millions more people. Former World Trade Organization Director-General Pascal Lamy has urged “plurilateral” action that involves not only states but also civil society and the private sector. The idea is not to sideline government, but to broaden ownership and mobilize resources in a more flexible, demand-driven way. With resources available to do good greater than at any point in human history, the challenge is political will and practical coordination—how to fund, authorize, and scale interventions that actually reach the vulnerable in conflict and post-conflict settings.

The UN has a clear, enduring mandate to protect fundamental rights and to steward cooperation on global challenges. Yet today the organization’s effectiveness depends on whether member states can converge around shared priorities and honor commitments to assistance, mediation and humanitarian protection. The crisis in Sudan underscores how badly funded urgent relief has become, while the Gaza situation highlights the risks of bottlenecks in aid delivery and political paralysis. The question for New York and for capitals around the world is whether the UN can translate moral authority into timely, tangible action when it matters most.

As the 80th anniversary period unfolds, observers say the time is ripe to empower civil society within the multilateral framework, to embrace pragmatic, scalable approaches to humanitarian relief, and to align political incentives with the needs of civilians trapped in conflict zones. The UN’s founding pledge remains as relevant as ever: to protect vulnerable life, uphold human dignity, and prevent the collapse of shared security norms. The road ahead will require more than speeches; it will require sustained resources, credible mediation, and a renewed willingness to engage across divides. The United Nations is a great idea. It has an inspiring mission. Now it needs to fulfill it.