THE United Nations general assembly began its latest session last week as it celebrates its 80th anniversary.

To be clear from the outset — I am a big supporter of the principles and charter of the UN. I just don’t think it’s being allowed to do its job.

The UN was founded in 1945 and is now based in New York City, and the UN Charter came into force in October of the same year.

The first general assembly of the UN took place at Central Hall, Westminster, in London in January 1946. The permanent headquarters in New York City opened in 1952 and the organisation has other offices in Geneva, Vienna and Nairobi.

In spite of my criticisms about its overall effectiveness, the UN is essential to advance the goals of peace, sustainable development and human rights.

It still aims to work with member states to end conflicts and to forge sustainable peace.

The UN documents human rights violations, advocates for robust human rights protections and pushes for compliance with international laws and standards.

Aiming to achieve these goals is, of course, not the same as success. The UN continues to face justifiable criticism over its failures to intervene effectively to stop wars carried out by rogue nations, such as Israel and the US, and to hold them to account for violations of the charter.

The whole notion of the collective action required by the international community has largely been undermined by the US and its allies, who seem only to be concerned to use the mechanisms of the UN when it is convenient to them.

Instead of following the UN Charter, the US has promoted its own so-called “international rules-based order” which effectively amounts to anything that the US says it is.

This is why China has been prompted to promote a new approach to international relations and a continued commitment to the principles of the UN Charter.

The Global Governance Initiative (GGI), announced by Chinese President Xi Jinping on September 1 2025 at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation Summit in Tianjin, is designed to strengthen the existing international system by promoting fairness, equality, and co-operation among states.

The GGI is the fourth global proposal introduced by Xi. It follows the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilisation Initiative.

The GGI is a vital signpost for the UN of where the global majority wants to see it located.

It is more than a lone-wolf proposal from China. It is the articulation of discussions that have been taking place across the global South for years.

The GGI aims for a new era of global governance without dismantling existing institutions.

Xi has made it clear that the aim is to improve the system’s inclusivity and fairness while addressing the major challenges of our time.

The Chinese leader pointed to the continued poison of cold war thinking, hegemonism, protectionism and new forms of instability.

The GGI has five key principles.

The first is sovereign equality. All countries, regardless of their size, economy or military capacity, should participate in global governance as equal partners. 

Each nation has the right to determine its own social and political system without outside interference.

The second calls for respect for international law based on the UN Charter.

The third principle is that much talked about multilateralism. The world no longer wants to see poles of power or hegemonic rule.

Xi called for the joint management of global affairs and rejection of unilateralism. He insists the UN should remain the central body of international governance.

The fourth is a people-centred approach. Governance, he argued during his speech, should be directed towards the wellbeing and sustainable development of people across the world rather than power competition.

The fifth principle is action not words. Xi said nations should work to deliver real solutions to real problems.

Xi’s insistence on the continuing importance of the UN is an important emphasis and, to be honest, has been tough for me to fully appreciate given its complete inaction on issues such as the genocide in Gaza and its sometimes complicity in US imperialism.

The UN, its charter and a number of other institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, were created in the aftermath of the victory over Nazism, fascism and imperialism in World War II.

The UN was created to entrench the power of the US and its allies against the Soviet Union through its dominance of its most important body, the security council.

The council has five permanent members — China, France, Russia, Britain and the US. Each nation has veto power.

There are also 10 non-permanent members elected by the UN general assembly for a term of two years. This is made up of five seats for African and Asian nations between them, one for eastern European states, two covering the Caribbean and Latin America and two more for western European and other nations (this group includes Australia, Canada and New Zealand).

The non-permanent members have no veto power.

It is unacceptable for vast swathes of the planet to be expected by the US and its imperialist allies to play a subservient colonial subject role.

The colonial mindset behind the arrangements that govern the UN is based on the notion that what comrade Vijay Prashad describes as the “darker nations” are “less than” or even subhuman.

The proxy war being conducted by the US against Russia in Ukraine and the ramping up of tensions against China, and of course, its complete inability to do anything to stop the genocide in Gaza shows that there is no meaningful sign of life at the UN.

The UN is reduced to being a conference organiser and to sending out press releases that are largely begging letters for more funding on important issues such as the climate emergency, water and a range of other issues.

The US dominance of the UN must be broken. The security council must have more than one permanent seat for the vast continent of Africa and it needs to hold representation for the African diaspora and India, the largest nation on the planet population-wise.

This must change. Without that the UN continues to operate as a useful idiot for the US to use or ignore at its will.

The same necessity for change exists for both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Both exist to support the growth of profits for US-controlled monopoly capital.

These bodies must also face radical reform and be broken away from US dominance with far more accountability to the global majority.

The UN is a vital body for bringing together the nations of the world but it is essentially the plaything of the US. The GGI can help to provide a real change of direction for the UN.