Day: October 12, 2026

A World Without a Referee: Why Dissolving the UN Would Deepen Global Chaos | By Maria Alice Souza Maia

syamanak

Abstract: The UN General Assembly meeting showed that countries are willing to change how the international system operates, but not for the better. The mission of peace and commitment to human rights must remain strong, even amid increasingly hostile rhetoric from global superpowers.

How can the United Nations restore global trust when its own General Assembly becomes a place for augmenting international divisions? The United Nations General Assembly met from September 8 to September 28, 2026. Delegations from 194 countries were represented and met under the theme of “Restoring trust, managing transformation: A United Nations that delivers for all”. In his speech, UN Secretary-General António Guterres addressed four critical issues: artificial intelligence, climate action, sustainable development goals, and global health and security. During the assembly, some speeches drew fierce condemnation.  Two examples of speeches that generated protests were those by Israel and the United States. President Donald Trump said that his other choice is to “annihilate the Islamic Republic” and that he plans to establish a “large military presence” on Greenland.  Israel’s speech addressed the genocide in Gaza, describing it as “the biggest lie of the century” and the invasion of Iran as “one of the easiest decisions I’ve ever had to make.” Multiple delegations left the assembly as a form of protest against Israel’s speech.1

Moreover, the speeches were marked by different narratives from the same situation: Israel and the Palestinian leader; President Vladimir Zelenskyy of Ukraine and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov; President Donald Trump and Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian.2 These speeches shaped the thematic agenda of the General Assembly. With three major wars happening in the world right now, several civil conflicts and dozens of genocide cases being investigated. These sharp divisions call into question whether the UN can still function as an effective instrument of collective security.

The theme of this General Assembly was overshadowed by the tensions among some of the present countries, but behind the scenes, a proposal to dissolve the UN and start a new world organization was being discussed.3 The UN faces its most serious crisis since 1945, dealing with a low budget and a transition to a new secretary-general. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres cut the budget by 15% for this year, 2026. This is because a lot of countries, including the U.S., didn’t pay their dues, ending the last year with $1.57 billion in outstanding dues.4 The UN General Assembly is a more diplomatic and representative stage than the Security Council and its five permanent member states. Many countries see the UN as an ineffective organization that, amid several conflicts, shows inaction and, when faced with legal procedures on crimes, fails to enforce the law under the UN Charter. The organization’s crisis of legitimacy is further exacerbated by long-standing structural underrepresentation. For instance, African nations comprise 28% of total UN member states (54 out of 193) and represent over 1.4 billion people, yet lack a single permanent seat on the Security Council.5

However, would the true solution be a full makeover? Wouldn’t a reform solve the problem?6 A UN reform has been called for decades now, and little has been done regarding this claim. So, it is not a surprise that some countries are advocating for this approach. However, there are some counterarguments to these demands. First, realist International Relations theory posits that the global system is fundamentally anarchic. Without an overarching international authority, multilateral bodies like the UN serve as essential de-escalation forums rather than a coercive world police.7 So, when conflicts break out, there is no world police to call for help or assistance with a task force. The UN serves as a peacekeeping force and source of diplomacy and negotiation to help states navigate the nature of the international system. 

Ultimately, preserving and reforming the existing UN architecture remains the only practical safeguard against global instability. Since its creation, it has helped develop and create education and healthcare systems, peacekeeping missions, and holding perpetrators accountable through international legal mechanisms. Going back to the past and adopting a new system that would generate even more insecurity and violations of human rights is not what the world needs right now.  Dismantling the referee does not end the game; it merely leaves raw power as the only rule on the field. Remaining at the table sends a far stronger signal than walking away.

  1. CNN, “United Nations General Assembly: Trump,” CNN, September 22, 2026.  ↩︎
  2. CNN, “United Nations General Assembly: Iran, Trump, Ukraine,” CNN, September 23, 2026.  ↩︎
  3. Bruno Cardoso Reis et al., “What’s at Stake at UNGA 2026?” Brookings Institution, September 23, 2026.   ↩︎
  4. Vibhu Mishra, “UN Faces ‘Race to Bankruptcy’ as Guterres Unveils Sharply Reduced 2026 Budget,” UN News, October 17, 2025.  ↩︎
  5. Andrew Stanley, “African Century,” Finance & Development, International Monetary Fund, September 2023.  ↩︎
  6. Howard, Lise Morjé. “Peacekeeping, Peace Enforcement, and UN Reform.” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 16, no. 2 (2015): 6–13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43773690. ↩︎
  7. Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. ↩︎

Economic Interdependence: Peace or Vulnerability? | By Kimberly Hernandez

syamanak

Abstract: Despite the long existing literature Liberal scholars have offered on the relationship between economic interdependence and security, recent trends in U.S. foreign policy has emphasized the need for American economic independence. Although there are certain vulnerabilities that have emerged from extreme dependence on China for materials needed for weapon production, the role of interdependence as an inhibitor of peace should not be completely disregarded.

In the 2025 National Security Strategy report, it declared that, “Going forward, we will rebalance America’s economic relationship with China, prioritizing reciprocity and fairness to restore American economic independence.”1 In recent years, many have begun to fear that interdependence has created dependence, and thus weakness. Liberalist international relations theory has traditionally posited that interdependence offers a medium for peace. Even so, recent developments have raised doubts about the underlying assumptions behind the theory of economic interdependence, as advocated for in the U.S. National Security Strategy. Rather than pursuing complete economic independence, the U.S should strategically manage interdependence by diversifying critical supply chains and decreasing asymmetric interdependence that could be exploited. 

Popular liberalist international relations theory hinges on the idea that trade and conflict have a negative relationship. Consequently, “trading countries with significant trade relations would thus engage in less conflict, because they are most threatened by welfare losses associated with lost trade.”2 However, more recent literature has questioned this relationship, and argued that the relationship between trade and conflict is much more complex than simply being an inverse relationship. Farrell, for example, argues that “asymmetric network structures create the potential for “weaponized interdependence,” in which some states are able to leverage interdependent relations to coerce others.”3 In other words, interdependence alone is not the solution for peace, but interdependence must be deliberately and strategically managed. 

Asymmetric interdependence has been a key source of worry for the U.S. Different assessments have been conducted to determine just how dependent the U.S. is on other countries. Specifically, the Government Accountability Office in a 2024 report found that “critical materials—like rare earths, tantalum, and tungsten—are materials needed to supply U.S. military…Most of these materials are mined and processed in China, which makes DOD’s weapon system programs vulnerable to supply chain disruptions by an adversary nation.”4 This aligns with Farrell’s findings of how interdependence can create channels of vulnerability. 

The realization of the deep asymmetric economic interdependence that the U.S has with China has increased fears that complete economic decoupling is necessary to protect U.S. national security. For example, in July of 2025, the Department of Defense invested $400 million in MP Materials, demonstrating a leap into the goal to decrease dependence on China for rare earth minerals.5 While complete independence may seem the ideal choice, economic interdependence has proven to remain effective, and de-coupling would also eradicate the benefits of America’s relationship with China. Indeed, while “China’s autonomy has grown as its wealth has increased—but like every other actor in the international system, it remains constrained by its reliance on the global economy.”6 In other words, interdependence continues to be an effective means of constraining power. Similarly, academic literature posits that “The greatest hope for peace appears to arise from symmetrical trading relationships.”7

Echoing this sentiment, former Secretary of the Treasury, Janet L. Yellen, in a 2023 press release argued that “A full separation of our economies would be disastrous for both countries. It would be destabilizing for the rest of the world.”8 This view in particular considers the logistical hardships behind aiming to completely become economically independent. Similarly, a 2021 report by the CSIS considers the immense closeness between the economies and in the end, argues for “targeted decoupling,” as opposed to full and comprehensive decoupling.9

In the end, while there is an increasing sentiment that the US should seek to become independent as a means to cut the channels of vulnerabilities that asymmetric interdependence has created, especially in relation to the immense dependence that US has on certain materials needed for weapon production, complete decoupling should not be the answer. Interdependence so far has proven to have a relation to decreasing conflict when used strategically, and complete decoupling would create further problems considering the close relationship that the U.S. economy holds with others. As such, the U.S instead focuses on repositioning its independence to maximize its utility. 

  1. National Security Strategy of the United States of America November 2025. Accessed September 30, 2026. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf.  ↩︎
  2. Polachek, S. W. (1980). Conflict and Trade. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(1), 55-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200278002400103 ↩︎
  3. Farrell, Henry, and Abraham L. Newman. “Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion.” International Security 44, no. 1 (2019): 42–79. ↩︎
  4. Office, U.S. Government Accountability. “U.S. Gao.” Critical Materials: Action Needed to Implement Requirements That Reduce Supply Chain Risks, September 12, 2024. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107176.  ↩︎
  5. Office, U.S. Government Accountability. “U.S. Gao.” Critical Materials: Action Needed to Implement Requirements That Reduce Supply Chain Risks, September 12, 2024. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107176.  ↩︎
  6. “Remarks by Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen on the U.S. – China Economic Relationship at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.” U.S. Department of the Treasury, April 20, 2023. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1425.  ↩︎
  7. The dangers of misunderstanding economic interdependence | Cato Institute.  https://www.cato.org/publications/dangers-misunderstanding-economic-interdependence.  ↩︎
  8. Barbieri, Katherine. “Economic Interdependence: A Path to Peace or a Source of Interstate Conflict?” Journal of Peace Research 33, no. 1 (1996): 29–49. http://www.jstor.org/stable/425132. ↩︎
  9. Segal, Stephanie, and Dylan Gerstel. “Degrees of Separation: A Targeted Approach to U.S.-China Decoupling – Interim Report.” CSIS. Accessed October 1, 2026. https://www.csis.org/analysis/degrees-separation-targeted-approach-us-china-decoupling-interim-report.  ↩︎