The annual United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has opened its doors once again, welcoming world leaders and top officials to New York. However, this year’s General Debate is preceded by a significant event: the Future Summit, an initiative led by UN Secretary-General António Guterres. The UN, now approaching its 80th anniversary, faces the daunting task of reformulating itself for a world that has changed dramatically since its inception. However, the problems facing the organization go beyond simple structural adjustments-they stem from the institution’s very foundation, which is deeply rooted in Western political culture. This cultural legacy is both the UN’s strength and its Achilles’ heel, and it poses the greatest challenge to the organization’s ability to meet the needs of a multipolar and diverse world.

One of the most common misconceptions about the UN is that it is a global government with the power to enforce decisions. In reality, it operates more as a barometer for the state of international relations, reflecting the mood and hierarchy of global powers. It functions best when world affairs are organized and there is a clear pecking order among nations. However, the current state of global relations is anything but orderly. There is no effective hierarchy, and the world is in a state of flux, with nations increasingly unwilling to follow the traditional rules of the game.

This rebellious, yet non-aggressive, mood can be seen in the growing rejection of top-down leadership from global institutions. While there is no widespread call for a global revolution, as there may have been in the past, there is a noticeable shift in attitudes toward the existing order. Countries, especially those outside the traditional centers of power, are increasingly resistant to following directives set by a handful of dominant nations. This reality places the UN in an awkward position, as its structure is a relic of a bygone era, where power was concentrated in the hands of a few nations.

At this year’s summit, the discussions center around three key documents: the Compact for the Future, the Global Digital Compact, and the Declaration on Future Generations. These documents are meant to provide a framework for future cooperation. Yet, there is no guarantee that they will be agreed upon. Nations are increasingly sensitive to the wording of international agreements, wary of any language that might be perceived as an attempt to undermine their sovereignty or autonomy. The hyper-sensitivity to these nuances only underscores the fragmentation of the global system, where consensus is hard to come by and enforcement of agreements even harder.

The question of the future of international institutions like the UN will remain a pressing issue. The ongoing transformation of the global system challenges the very foundation upon which these institutions were built. If the UN is to remain relevant, it must adapt to these changes.

One of the UN’s most significant challenges is its historical and cultural foundations. The institution is a product of Western political thought, born out of the aftermath of World War II and shaped by the priorities of the victorious Allied powers. The structure of the Security Council, with its five permanent members (the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom), reflects the power dynamics of a world order that no longer exists.

However, the issue goes deeper than just the composition of the Security Council. International law itself, which the UN is tasked with upholding, is also a product of Western political and legal traditions. This is not inherently good or bad-it is simply a historical fact. But as the world becomes more multipolar, with power and influence increasingly distributed across different regions and cultures, the dominance of Western legal norms is being questioned.

In a world where Western conceptual approaches are no longer universally accepted, the challenge for the UN is to reconcile these differing legal and political traditions. As the global system diversifies, international law must also evolve to reflect the realities of a multipolar world. Yet, the UN’s current structure and legal framework are ill-equipped to handle this transition.

The concept of a multipolar world is often invoked to describe the current global landscape, but it remains an imperfect term. It does not fully capture the complexity of international relations today, where power is dispersed among a larger group of actors, each with its own set of interests, values, and goals. This diversity makes global regulation more challenging than ever.

However, this does not mean that the UN is obsolete. The world may be more complex and fragmented, but it is also more interconnected. This interconnectedness, driven by economic, technological, and environmental forces, makes cooperation on certain global issues essential. Climate change, pandemics, and cyber security are just a few examples of problems that transcend borders and require collective action. Even in a multipolar world, the need for a platform like the UN, where nations can come together to address these issues, remains.

The challenge for the UN is to find a way to build consensus among a diverse group of nations that are increasingly unwilling to follow the lead of a few dominant players. The focus should not be on maintaining the current hierarchy of power, but on creating a more inclusive system that recognizes the growing influence of nations outside the traditional centers of power.

As the UN approaches its 80th anniversary, the need for reform is undeniable. The world has changed, and the institution must change with it. But the path forward is far from clear. Security Council reform, often cited as the most pressing issue, is just one piece of a much larger puzzle. The real challenge is how to build a system of international governance that reflects the realities of a multipolar, culturally diverse world.

The future of the UN may not depend on who holds the most power within the institution, but on how well it can facilitate cooperation between nations that are increasingly unwilling to accept a top-down approach to global governance. The rise of non-Western powers, the diversification of legal and political cultures, and the growing resistance to Western dominance all point to the need for a new approach.

Perhaps the key to the UN’s future lies in embracing this diversity rather than trying to impose a single set of rules or norms. In a world where no one is willing to follow orders, the UN’s role may be to foster dialogue, build bridges, and facilitate cooperation on issues where there is no escape from collective action. This may not be the grand vision of global governance that some had hoped for, but it may be the only way to keep the institution relevant in an increasingly complex and fragmented world.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel