By Dr Idahosa Oshamanze
Walkouts, open contempt and a Security Council frozen in 1945 are turning the world’s peace forum into a talk shop.
Reform must begin with the powerful — and with learning to listen.By Osamhanze IdahosaOn Thursday, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu approached the rostrum of the 81st United Nations General Assembly in New York, scores of delegates rose and filed out of the hall, answering a call by the Palestinian mission for a collective walkout. Those who remained heard him dismiss the departed as “moral cowards.” Whatever one thinks of the war in Gaza — and there is a great deal the world must think hard about — the scene captured something deeply troubling about the state of the world’s foremost forum for dialogue: very few people came to listen. 
The walkout has become a General Assembly ritual. It happened when the same leader spoke at the 80th session last year, and delegations have staged it against other speakers before him. As a form of protest, it is legitimate. But we must ask what it achieves. The delegates who leave register their disapproval; the speaker gets a defiant clip for his audience at home; and the hall is emptied of the one thing the United Nations exists to supply — a room in which adversaries are obliged to hear one another out.The UN was not built for friendsFriends do not need a United Nations.
The organisation was founded in 1945, from the ashes of a world war, precisely so that nations who distrust and even despise one another would have a place to talk before they fight, and a place to keep talking while they fight. Czech President Petr Pavel put it well this week when he described the UN as indispensable, above all as a forum for dialogue between adversaries. When that forum becomes a theatre of avoidance, where leaders deliver speeches written for domestic audiences and walk out on everyone else’s, it is fair to ask whether the institution can still do the job for which it was created.Contempt from the topThe disrespect is not limited to empty seats. From the same podium, Argentina’s President Javier Milei accused the UN of failing to guarantee collective security. The United States, the organisation’s host and historically its largest funder, has paid only part of the nearly $4 billion it owes; its August payment of $725 million was reportedly calculated to be just enough to keep its vote in the General Assembly. Across several capitals, UN organs — from human rights bodies to international courts — are spoken of with open scorn whenever their findings prove inconvenient.When powerful nations treat the UN with contempt, they send a clear message to everyone else: the rules are for the weak. An institution draws its authority from the respect of those with the power to ignore it. Once that respect is withdrawn, its resolutions become mere suggestions, and its annual gathering becomes exactly what cynics have long called it — a talk shop and a diplomatic jamboree.Seek first to understandStephen Covey, in his seminal book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, offered counsel that world leaders would do well to heed. His fifth habit is simple to state and difficult to practise: seek first to understand, then to be understood. Covey observed that most people listen to reply, not to understand. That is precisely the disease of modern diplomacy.Every conflict has at its heart a set of grievances, fears and interests that each side experiences as real, whether or not the other side accepts them. No negotiation can resolve what it refuses to hear. Listening is not endorsement. Staying in the hall to hear an adversary’s case is not agreeing with it; it is gathering the information without which no settlement is possible. Walking out costs nothing. Listening is costly, uncomfortable and humbling — which is exactly why it is the beginning of peace. Until we hear ourselves out, mutual understanding of the issues at the heart of each conflict will remain out of reach.A 1945 structure in a 2026 worldIt would be unfair, however, to blame manners alone. The UN’s structure itself breeds the frustration that plays out in the Assembly hall. The Security Council, the only organ whose decisions bind member states, still has five permanent, veto-wielding members that reflect the victors of 1945. In his final address to the General Assembly as Secretary-General this week, António Guterres said plainly that this arrangement no longer represents the world, and he pointed to Africa — largely under colonial rule when the UN was founded — which still has no permanent seat. African leaders, including Kenya’s President William Ruto, pressed the same case again this week, as they have year after year.Meanwhile, talks on Council reform have been rolled over session after session — for the seventeenth time last year.
A Council that can be frozen by a single veto on Gaza, on Ukraine, or on the war between the United States and Iran cannot credibly claim to maintain international peace and security. Small wonder that frustrated nations take their protest to the one place where they can still be seen: the floor of the General Assembly, where they vote with their feet.What reform must look likeThe UN needs serious reform to restore dignity and respect to global institutions. That means enlarging the Security Council to give Africa permanent representation and the Global South a fair voice. It means restraining the veto, beginning with a commitment by the permanent members not to use it in situations of mass atrocity, and building on the Assembly’s existing requirement that any veto be explained before the full membership. It means paying dues fully and on time, so the organisation is not held hostage by its own funders. It also means giving General Assembly resolutions real follow-up mechanisms, so the world’s collective voice is not simply recorded and forgotten.The onus is on the powerfulHere lies the uncomfortable truth: reform is a gift only the powerful can give. Under Article 108 of the UN Charter, any amendment must be ratified by two-thirds of member states, including all five permanent members of the Security Council. The framework for reform, inclusivity and the democratisation of the UN and its organs must therefore be set by the very nations that benefit most from the present arrangement.They should do so not out of charity, but out of self-interest. A UN seen as illegitimate serves no one — not even the powerful. The alternative to a reformed multilateral order is not a world run by the strong; it is a world of rival blocs, unchecked wars and crises that no single nation, however mighty, can contain alone.The United Nations can still fulfil its purpose. But it will do so only when its members, great and small, return to the room, stay in their seats and do the hardest thing in diplomacy: listen. Peace has never been made by people who refused to hear each other out.Osamhanze Idahosa, Vice President, Africa Development Studies Center (ADSC).
