UN at 81: Why the World Still Needs Multilateralism to Survive

Every September, world leaders descend on New York for the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) — an event often dismissed as diplomatic theatre. But for Vijay Makhan, a Mauritian diplomat and former Assistant Chairperson of the African Union Commission, the 81st session was a timely reminder that the UN remains not just relevant, but indispensable. **A forum the powerful want to bypass** Makhan's central argument is pointed: the greatest danger to the United Nations is not its inefficiency, but its circumvention. When powerful states find the UN inconvenient — too slow, too democratic, too unpredictable — they increasingly act outside it. Bilateral deals, regional blocs, and unilateral military or economic action have all, at various points, been used to sidestep the collective decision-making the UN was built to provide. This is not a new tension, but it is a sharpening one. From conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine to trade disputes and climate commitments, the instinct of dominant powers to act first and consult multilateral bodies second has become more visible. **Why universality matters** The UN's strength, Makhan contends, lies precisely in its universality — 193 member states, each with an equal vote in the General Assembly. For small island nations like Mauritius, this matters enormously. In a world ordered purely by military or economic weight, a country of 1.3 million people in the Indian Ocean would have little say in decisions that affect its coastline, its trade routes, or its sovereignty claims — such as the ongoing Chagos Islands dispute with the United Kingdom. The General Assembly cannot compel action the way the Security Council can, but it confers legitimacy. Resolutions passed by wide majorities carry moral and political weight that unilateral declarations cannot replicate. **The Security Council problem** Makhan does not ignore the UN's structural weaknesses. The Security Council — the body with actual enforcement power — remains dominated by five permanent members (the US, UK, France, Russia and China), each holding a veto. This architecture, frozen in 1945, means that when one of these powers is party to a conflict or dispute, the Council is effectively paralysed. Reform proposals have circulated for decades without result. Yet the answer, Makhan implies, is not to abandon the institution but to defend and reform it. **What this means for Mauritius** For Mauritius, multilateralism is not an abstract principle — it is a strategic necessity. The country has used UN mechanisms, including the International Court of Justice and General Assembly resolutions, to press its case for sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. A world where powerful states routinely bypass international institutions is a world where small nations lose their most effective voice. As geopolitical fault lines deepen in 2025, the debate over the UN's role is one Mauritians — and their leaders — have a direct stake in following. Source: Mauritius Times