UN: struggling at 80
Published September 24, 2025
DAWN
THERE’S more than one way of looking at the formal recognition of a non-existent Palestinian state by a clutch of Western nations. Even the most fervid optimists can’t pretend that this symbolic move could help impede the Gaza genocide unless words are followed by action.
Symbolism isn’t always useless. Even belated recognition by traditional Israeli allies, just as the occupying power is kiboshing the prospect of a Palestinian state, might carry some moral weight. But the gesture is meaningless as long as some of them continue to collude with the Israeli military. The UK, in particular, has been directly complicit in the genocide.
The Netanyahu regime has responded to the recognition by threatening bilateral retaliation as well as West Bank annexation, which is informally proceeding apace. An immediate arms embargo would be the logical response. But logic flounders where hypocrisy is the norm — and that includes flogging the dead horse of a ‘two-state solution’, not least at the Saudi-French conference coinciding with the 80th anniversary session of the UN General Assembly.
The UN has been struggling to uphold its relevance as an organisation set up in the aftermath of World War II and the accompanying genocide against European Jews “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. It has faced more failures than successes on that front, but a wide range of UN initiatives and organs continue to benefit humanity in various ways.
Much of what is now known as the Global South, including the Indian subcontinent, was still colonised by European powers when the General Assembly was first convened. The complexion of the UN drastically changed over the succeeding decades as a plethora of Afro-Asian states won liberation, and the global organisation ultimately played a key role in ridding South Africa of the scourge of apartheid after even the last holdouts — then, as now, the UK and US — could no longer prop up the white-supremacist regime in Pretoria.
The UN’s Palestinian failure looms large.
It took almost three decades for the anti-apartheid initiatives to bear fruit, and while the process was pockmarked by all manner of atrocities, there was no obviously genocidal agenda. Nonetheless, its recent history helps to explain why it was South Africa that placed Israel in the dock at the International Court of Justice. Any verdict in that case will come too late for the Palestinians who are being butchered every day, while the authors of the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration put up the pretence of humanitarian concerns even as they continue to aid the genocide.
A different way of looking at it is offered by Columbia University professor Joseph Massad, who argues that the real purpose of the recent recognitions “is to save Israel from itself by safeguarding its right to remain a Jewish-supremacist state” and that “Western recognition of a fictive Palestinian state hinges entirely on their long-standing recognition of the racist state of Israel alongside it. It is also engineered to shore up the collaborating Palestinian Authority as a reliable subcontractor of Israel’s colonial occupation of Palestinian land by christening it a ‘state’”.
The US prevented even the head of what Massad justifiably derided as “a loyal enforcer of Israel’s occupation since 1993” from appearing at the UN. Mahmoud Abbas, nine years older than the 80-year-old UN, denied a US visa, appeared on video link at the Saudi-French circus, and devoted much of his discourse to dissing Hamas.
It’s worth recalling that Hamas — flawed on many fronts, but more attractive to the average Palestinian than the compromised Fatah — won the last Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, but was evicted from a governing role by Israel and its Western allies, and thereby pushed into claiming Gaza as its domain after an Israeli-sponsored civil war with the PLO. Israel has subsequently thwarted every attempt at a reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah.
The current focus on Hamas as an obstacle to peace ignores its history as an anti-PLO initiative sponsored by the Zionist state. If Hamas and its resistance are anathema to those who are currently recognising Israel, what kind of alternative do they envisage? The Islamist tendencies of Hamas can be questioned, but can its efforts entirely be divorced from its tendencies as the only viable resistance to the Zionist onslaught?
The truth is that not much will change until Israel’s chief sponsor shifts its trajectory. Donald Trump was yet to appear at the UN when this comment was written, but it can be predicted that nothing good will come of it. Unless Trump could somehow be persuaded that his chimera of a Palestinian-free Gaza Riviera is an unachievable travesty.
The UN’s struggles for relevance, meanwhile, might help to convince it of the follies it helped to perpetrate in 1948.
mahir.dawn@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, September 24th, 2025
THERE’S more than one way of looking at the formal recognition of a non-existent Palestinian state by a clutch of Western nations. Even the most fervid optimists can’t pretend that this symbolic move could help impede the Gaza genocide unless words are followed by action.
Symbolism isn’t always useless. Even belated recognition by traditional Israeli allies, just as the occupying power is kiboshing the prospect of a Palestinian state, might carry some moral weight. But the gesture is meaningless as long as some of them continue to collude with the Israeli military. The UK, in particular, has been directly complicit in the genocide.
The Netanyahu regime has responded to the recognition by threatening bilateral retaliation as well as West Bank annexation, which is informally proceeding apace. An immediate arms embargo would be the logical response. But logic flounders where hypocrisy is the norm — and that includes flogging the dead horse of a ‘two-state solution’, not least at the Saudi-French conference coinciding with the 80th anniversary session of the UN General Assembly.
The UN has been struggling to uphold its relevance as an organisation set up in the aftermath of World War II and the accompanying genocide against European Jews “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. It has faced more failures than successes on that front, but a wide range of UN initiatives and organs continue to benefit humanity in various ways.
Much of what is now known as the Global South, including the Indian subcontinent, was still colonised by European powers when the General Assembly was first convened. The complexion of the UN drastically changed over the succeeding decades as a plethora of Afro-Asian states won liberation, and the global organisation ultimately played a key role in ridding South Africa of the scourge of apartheid after even the last holdouts — then, as now, the UK and US — could no longer prop up the white-supremacist regime in Pretoria.
The UN’s Palestinian failure looms large.
It took almost three decades for the anti-apartheid initiatives to bear fruit, and while the process was pockmarked by all manner of atrocities, there was no obviously genocidal agenda. Nonetheless, its recent history helps to explain why it was South Africa that placed Israel in the dock at the International Court of Justice. Any verdict in that case will come too late for the Palestinians who are being butchered every day, while the authors of the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration put up the pretence of humanitarian concerns even as they continue to aid the genocide.
A different way of looking at it is offered by Columbia University professor Joseph Massad, who argues that the real purpose of the recent recognitions “is to save Israel from itself by safeguarding its right to remain a Jewish-supremacist state” and that “Western recognition of a fictive Palestinian state hinges entirely on their long-standing recognition of the racist state of Israel alongside it. It is also engineered to shore up the collaborating Palestinian Authority as a reliable subcontractor of Israel’s colonial occupation of Palestinian land by christening it a ‘state’”.
The US prevented even the head of what Massad justifiably derided as “a loyal enforcer of Israel’s occupation since 1993” from appearing at the UN. Mahmoud Abbas, nine years older than the 80-year-old UN, denied a US visa, appeared on video link at the Saudi-French circus, and devoted much of his discourse to dissing Hamas.
It’s worth recalling that Hamas — flawed on many fronts, but more attractive to the average Palestinian than the compromised Fatah — won the last Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006, but was evicted from a governing role by Israel and its Western allies, and thereby pushed into claiming Gaza as its domain after an Israeli-sponsored civil war with the PLO. Israel has subsequently thwarted every attempt at a reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah.
The current focus on Hamas as an obstacle to peace ignores its history as an anti-PLO initiative sponsored by the Zionist state. If Hamas and its resistance are anathema to those who are currently recognising Israel, what kind of alternative do they envisage? The Islamist tendencies of Hamas can be questioned, but can its efforts entirely be divorced from its tendencies as the only viable resistance to the Zionist onslaught?
The truth is that not much will change until Israel’s chief sponsor shifts its trajectory. Donald Trump was yet to appear at the UN when this comment was written, but it can be predicted that nothing good will come of it. Unless Trump could somehow be persuaded that his chimera of a Palestinian-free Gaza Riviera is an unachievable travesty.
The UN’s struggles for relevance, meanwhile, might help to convince it of the follies it helped to perpetrate in 1948.
mahir.dawn@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, September 24th, 2025
Published September 24, 2025
PRESIDENT Trump addresses the UN General Assembly.—AFP
• Calls climate change a ‘con job’, terms renewable energy ‘a joke’
• Boasts of stopping ‘seven wars’; questions the need for a global watchdog
• Criticises European immigration policies, offers his own crackdown on immigrants as a model to follow
• Jokingly complains about malfunctioning escalators, teleprompters
UNITED NATIONS: In a combative, wide-ranging speech before UN General Assembly on Tuesday, US President Donald Trump railed against climate change, and told world leaders their countries were “going to hell” because of their immigration policies.
The 56-minute speech was a rebuke to the world body and a return to form for Trump, who routinely bashed the UN during his first term as president.
Trump, who has cast himself as a peacemaker in a bid to win the Nobel Peace Prize, complained that the United Nations did not support his efforts to end conflicts around the world.
“I ended seven wars, dealt with the leaders of each and every one of these countries, and never even received a phone call from the United Nations offering to help,” he said.
“What is the purpose of the United Nations? The UN has such tremendous potential … but it’s not even coming close to living up to that potential. All they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up. It’s empty words, and empty words don’t solve war. The only thing that solves war and wars is action,” he said.
However, in a meeting with the UN chief after his speech, Trump struck a softer note, saying: “Our country is behind the United Nations 100pc… I may disagree with it sometimes, but I am so behind it”.
In a moment of levity, Trump jokingly complained that a UN escalator had abruptly stopped as he and First Lady Melania Trump were halfway up and then the teleprompter in the General Assembly did not work.
“I can only say that whoever’s operating this teleprompter is in big trouble,” he said. These are the two things I got from the United Nations a bad escalator and a bad teleprompter.” a UN official said the White House operated the teleprompter.
After Trump finished speaking, UNGA President Annalena Baerbock said: “The UN teleprompters are working perfectly.”
‘Pet’ topics
But much of his speech was dominated by two of his biggest grievances: climate change and immigration.
President Trump called climate change a “con job” and urged a return to a greater reliance on fossil fuels as he mocked renewables as a “joke”.
The “carbon footprint is a hoax made up by people with evil intentions, and they’re heading down a path of total destruction,” he insisted.
“We’re getting rid of the falsely named renewables, by the way, they’re a joke, they don’t work, they’re too expensive,” he said at another point, calling wind technology “so pathetic, so bad,” and boasted that he had instead “unleashed” massive efforts to drill for new oil, gas and coal reserves. “Immigration and their suicidal energy ideas will be the death of Western Europe,” he said. Trump also offered his US immigration crackdown as a case study for what other world leaders should do to curb mass migration he says is altering the fabric of nations.
He also mocked Nato allies for not shutting down purchases of Russian oil.
“They’re funding the war against themselves. Who the hell ever heard of that one? In the event that Russia is not ready to make a deal to end the war, then the United States is fully prepared to impose a very strong round of powerful tariffs,” he said. Scientists and world leaders reacted sharply to the US president’s barbs.
“President Trump and his administration continue to spew lies and disinformation about climate science and the overwhelming benefits of clean energy, a grave disservice to the American people,” said Rachel Cleetus of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“Climate change is here, it’s costly, and people need real solutions, not propaganda designed to boost the profits of fossil fuel polluters,” she argued.
Published in Dawn, September 24th, 2025
UNGA at 80: time to act
Published September 20, 2025
DAWN
The writer is chief executive of the Civil Society Coalition for Climate Change.
AS the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) marks its 80th session in 2025, it stands at a critical crossroads — not just as a platform for global diplomacy, but also as a moral compass in an era of escalating climate emergency.
What began in 1945 as a beacon of peace and multilateralism must now evolve to meet the greatest existential threat of our time: climate change. And in doing so, it must acknowledge the human rights dimensions of this crisis, ensuring justice for those least responsible but most affected.
In this historic year, the UNGA cannot afford to offer only symbolic gestures. It must champion real, urgent climate action, particularly in the realm of adaptation and funding for loss and damage, and push for the recognition of climate change not just as an environmental or economic issue, but also as a violation of fundamental human rights.
Nowhere is this injustice starker than in Pakistan, which has faced one of the worst climate disasters in recent history. In 2022, catastrophic floods submerged a third of the country, affecting 33 million people, killing over 1,700 people and displacing millions. The economic damage was estimated at over $30 billion. Monsoon- or cloudburst-triggered floods in 2025 have left more than 800 people dead since June.
For a country responsible for less than one per cent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the devastation was not just tragic, it was unjust. Pakistan’s experience is a grim reminder that climate change respects no borders and its impacts are disproportionately felt by nations and populations with the least resources to cope.
The UN General Assembly cannot afford to offer only symbolic gestures. It must champion real, urgent climate action.
The recurring floods in Pakistan aren’t merely a natural disaster; they are a symptom of a global system failing its most vulnerable. As the climate crisis intensifies, extreme weather events will no longer remain isolated but become more frequent and intense.
The creation of the Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 was a historic moment, recognising the responsibility of high-emitting countries to support those suffering the worst climate impacts. However, nearly two years on, the fund remains under-financed and under-delivered. Without substantial and sustained contributions, the promise of the fund will remain hollow.
Adaptation efforts aimed at helping communities adjust to the changing climate are also woefully under-funded. According to the UN, adaptation finance needs in developing countries could rise to $300bn annually by 2030, yet current flows are just a fraction of that. This shortfall translates directly into lives lost, livelihoods destroyed and futures foreclosed.
The 80th session of the UNGA must serve as a turning point. Member states must move beyond pledges and towards binding financial commitments to fund adaptation and loss and damage. They must recognise that climate finance is not charity but compensation for harm caused, and a step towards a more just and stable world.
The moral imperative for climate action gained significant legal and ethical weight with the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) advisory opinion delivered in July 2025. The non-binding advisory opinion states that countries have a legal obligation under international law to curb GHG emissions and protect the climate system, particularly in relation to human rights and intergenerational equity.
This landmark case marks a profound shift in how the world perceives climate change — not just as a scientific or geopolitical issue, but as a matter of justice and human dignity. The ICJ’s advisory opinion affirms that governments have legal obligations to protect their citizens from climate harm and must act with urgency in reducing emissions and financing resilience.
Climate-induced forced displacement, food insecurity, water scarcity and growing inequality are all fundamentally human rights violations. Nations that breach climate obligations and cause harm may have to pay reparations to the affected countries.
The UN, with its long-standing commitment to human rights, must take this moment to align its climate response accordingly. It must support mechanisms to hold nations and corporations accountable for climate-related harm and elevate the voices of communities on the front lines.
As world leaders gather in New York to commemorate 80 years of the UNGA, there is both celebration and reckoning. The UN has presided over decades of dialogue, diplomacy and peace-building, but it must now rise to meet the challenge of climate justice with the same resolve.
We need a dedicated ‘UN Climate Justice Council’ to monitor, report on, and advise states on fulfilling their human rights obligations under climate law. We need robust financial commitments to adaptation and loss and damage, not in the billions, but in the trillions. And we need legal pathways for the victims of climate injustice to seek redress.
Climate change is the defining issue of our generation, and how we address it will define the legitimacy of global governance for decades to come. The outcome of the 80th UNGA must not be limited to lofty speeches, but reflect the aspirations of the global majority under threat. It must choose justice over delay, action over apathy, and responsibility over indifference.
Eighty years ago, the founders of the United Nations pledged to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. Today, the scourge is climate change and the generation is already here. Let the legacy of the 80th UNGA be one of courage, compassion and commitment to a liveable and equitable future for all. The UN at 80 must rise to the occasion.
aisha@csccc.org.pk
Published in Dawn, September 20th, 2025
AS the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) marks its 80th session in 2025, it stands at a critical crossroads — not just as a platform for global diplomacy, but also as a moral compass in an era of escalating climate emergency.
What began in 1945 as a beacon of peace and multilateralism must now evolve to meet the greatest existential threat of our time: climate change. And in doing so, it must acknowledge the human rights dimensions of this crisis, ensuring justice for those least responsible but most affected.
In this historic year, the UNGA cannot afford to offer only symbolic gestures. It must champion real, urgent climate action, particularly in the realm of adaptation and funding for loss and damage, and push for the recognition of climate change not just as an environmental or economic issue, but also as a violation of fundamental human rights.
Nowhere is this injustice starker than in Pakistan, which has faced one of the worst climate disasters in recent history. In 2022, catastrophic floods submerged a third of the country, affecting 33 million people, killing over 1,700 people and displacing millions. The economic damage was estimated at over $30 billion. Monsoon- or cloudburst-triggered floods in 2025 have left more than 800 people dead since June.
For a country responsible for less than one per cent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the devastation was not just tragic, it was unjust. Pakistan’s experience is a grim reminder that climate change respects no borders and its impacts are disproportionately felt by nations and populations with the least resources to cope.
The UN General Assembly cannot afford to offer only symbolic gestures. It must champion real, urgent climate action.
The recurring floods in Pakistan aren’t merely a natural disaster; they are a symptom of a global system failing its most vulnerable. As the climate crisis intensifies, extreme weather events will no longer remain isolated but become more frequent and intense.
The creation of the Loss and Damage Fund at COP27 was a historic moment, recognising the responsibility of high-emitting countries to support those suffering the worst climate impacts. However, nearly two years on, the fund remains under-financed and under-delivered. Without substantial and sustained contributions, the promise of the fund will remain hollow.
Adaptation efforts aimed at helping communities adjust to the changing climate are also woefully under-funded. According to the UN, adaptation finance needs in developing countries could rise to $300bn annually by 2030, yet current flows are just a fraction of that. This shortfall translates directly into lives lost, livelihoods destroyed and futures foreclosed.
The 80th session of the UNGA must serve as a turning point. Member states must move beyond pledges and towards binding financial commitments to fund adaptation and loss and damage. They must recognise that climate finance is not charity but compensation for harm caused, and a step towards a more just and stable world.
The moral imperative for climate action gained significant legal and ethical weight with the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) advisory opinion delivered in July 2025. The non-binding advisory opinion states that countries have a legal obligation under international law to curb GHG emissions and protect the climate system, particularly in relation to human rights and intergenerational equity.
This landmark case marks a profound shift in how the world perceives climate change — not just as a scientific or geopolitical issue, but as a matter of justice and human dignity. The ICJ’s advisory opinion affirms that governments have legal obligations to protect their citizens from climate harm and must act with urgency in reducing emissions and financing resilience.
Climate-induced forced displacement, food insecurity, water scarcity and growing inequality are all fundamentally human rights violations. Nations that breach climate obligations and cause harm may have to pay reparations to the affected countries.
The UN, with its long-standing commitment to human rights, must take this moment to align its climate response accordingly. It must support mechanisms to hold nations and corporations accountable for climate-related harm and elevate the voices of communities on the front lines.
As world leaders gather in New York to commemorate 80 years of the UNGA, there is both celebration and reckoning. The UN has presided over decades of dialogue, diplomacy and peace-building, but it must now rise to meet the challenge of climate justice with the same resolve.
We need a dedicated ‘UN Climate Justice Council’ to monitor, report on, and advise states on fulfilling their human rights obligations under climate law. We need robust financial commitments to adaptation and loss and damage, not in the billions, but in the trillions. And we need legal pathways for the victims of climate injustice to seek redress.
Climate change is the defining issue of our generation, and how we address it will define the legitimacy of global governance for decades to come. The outcome of the 80th UNGA must not be limited to lofty speeches, but reflect the aspirations of the global majority under threat. It must choose justice over delay, action over apathy, and responsibility over indifference.
Eighty years ago, the founders of the United Nations pledged to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. Today, the scourge is climate change and the generation is already here. Let the legacy of the 80th UNGA be one of courage, compassion and commitment to a liveable and equitable future for all. The UN at 80 must rise to the occasion.
aisha@csccc.org.pk
Published in Dawn, September 20th, 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment