BY ADAMA DIENG
World leaders are once again taking their turn at the podium of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). They speak of wars, peace, climate, development, human rights and the future of multilateralism. Some speeches will be remembered. Most will soon be forgotten. But beyond the speeches lies a harder question: Can the United Nations still turn collective concern into collective action when it matters most?
The opening exchanges reveal something deeper: Governments may gather under the same roof, but they increasingly differ over what multilateralism should require of them. The danger is a system that can diagnose crises eloquently yet remains unable to prevent them.
There is merit in demanding greater discipline, coherence and efficiency from a UN often criticised as too large and bureaucratic. Institutions must adapt or risk losing relevance. But retrenchment should not be mistaken for reform. The real question is not whether the United Nations can do less, but whether it can do what matters-better, earlier and more effectively.
For Africa, the test is stark. From Sudan to the Sahel, we know the terrible distance between early warning and early action. Too often, danger is recognised, documented and debated – until the human cost becomes unbearable. Yet Africa must not merely be the terrain on which multilateralism is tested. African states and institutions must assume their responsibility to prevent crises, while the UN strengthens their capacity to act before prevention fails.
Reform should therefore be measured not primarily by budgets reduced, posts abolished or structures merged, but by whether conflicts are prevented earlier, civilians protected more effectively and regional actors supported before crises become catastrophes.
When the speeches end and delegations leave New York, the real test begins. The question is not how much United Nations the world can afford. It is how much failure humanity can continue to afford.
