At the latest session of the United Nations General Assembly, one scene summed up the state of the world: a speaker stands at the podium talking about military power, technology and artificial intelligence, while outside the hall the world suffers from war, destruction, and hunger. Another speaker continues his address as delegations walk out in protest.

 

US President Donald Trump's speech carried a clear message centred on American power. He spoke about military and technological capabilities, American leadership in artificial intelligence, and several international issues, including Iran, in language that included warnings and threats. The United States has every right to speak about its interests and strength. But in a hall established to prevent wars, a fundamental question remains: What can a discourse of power achieve when the world desperately needs a discourse of solutions?

 

Military power may deter, and weapons may destroy, but neither can build lasting peace. Artificial intelligence itself could become a new danger if it becomes part of an arms race without clear international rules. The real challenge is not simply for one country to be technologically superior, but for humanity to use technology to serve people rather than expand the reach of war.

 

Amid all these speeches, Gaza remained an open wound in the international system. The UN secretary general spoke about the humanitarian catastrophe, the need to protect civilians, deliver aid, and respect international law. Yet the questions remain: How many speeches are needed before the killing stops? How many resolutions are required before international law becomes reality rather than words on paper? The world needs results more than statements.

 

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the Assembly while numerous delegations walked out in protest against Israel's policies in Gaza. The empty seats became part of the political message. Netanyahu described those who left as "moral cowards," while Iceland's foreign minister argued that moral courage requires negotiating for peace, allowing humanitarian assistance, and respecting international law.

 

Beyond the political dispute lies a deeper question: Who has the courage to make peace? Political courage is not merely the ability to use force; it is the ability to stop fighting when continuing a war may be easier than building peace.

 

The Palestinian issue added another striking dimension. While Netanyahu stood at the podium, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was outside the United States after being denied an entry visa and therefore addressed the General Assembly through a video recording. This is not about judging Abbas or Netanyahu. It is about a principle: How can the United Nations be the common house of the world when a decision by the host country can prevent a head of state from attending in person?

 

The International Criminal Court's arrest warrant for Netanyahu, issued in connection with alleged war crimes, adds another difficult question concerning the international system: Where does international law stand when political considerations appear to take precedence?

 

To be fair, the General Assembly is not without value. It remains the world's largest international forum and gives states an opportunity to express their positions. The problem lies in the gap between diplomacy as words and diplomacy as action. The world does not gather in New York every year because it needs more speeches; it gathers because it needs solutions.

 

Nor is it fair to place the entire responsibility on the United Nations. The organisation is not a world government and has no army of its own. It reflects the balance of power among states. When major powers agree, the UN can accomplish much; when they disagree, it can become an arena for conflict rather than a mechanism for resolving it. The crisis of the United Nations is also a crisis of international political will.

 

Perhaps the most telling image is this: a crowded podium… and an empty hall. The speaker talks, the chairs remain silent, and the world watches. Then the delegations return to their capitals while wars continue.

 

More than eight decades after the creation of the United Nations, the same question remains: Can international law become stronger than power, peace more attractive than war, and human life more important than weapons?

 

The value of the United Nations should not be measured by the number of leaders who speak from its podium or the length of their speeches, but by what happens after the lights go out and the delegations return home.The United Nations does not need longer speeches. It needs stronger action. Humanity does not need more displays of power; it needs a system in which law stands above power, peace comes before war, and human beings come before weapons.

 

Finally, it is essential to note the positive speech delivered by His Majesty King Abdullah at the United Nations regarding Palestine, which represented a rational voice calling for peace, justice, and the two-state solution, affirming that stability in the region cannot be achieved without fairness to the Palestinian people and the protection of their legitimate rights. That speech reminded the world that true leadership is measured by wisdom and responsibility, not by who holds the highest ceiling of escalation.

 

The writer is a researcher and strategic planner