• A rhetorical challenge to the UN

When United States (US) President Donald John Trump declared that “empty words don’t stop wars” in his this year’s (2025) address to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, he gave voice to a long-standing frustration that the institution has become a stage for rhetoric and symbolic resolutions rather than a site of meaningful conflict resolution. His blunt language resonated in a world marked by escalating violence in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and Myanmar, where UN declarations often appear to produce more paper than peace.

At the same time, his critique raises deeper theoretical questions: Can international institutions relying on moral persuasion shape state behaviour in a system dominated by military and economic power, or does their dependence on rhetoric reveal a fundamental inadequacy? By forcing scholars to revisit the divide between idealist faith in norms and realist insistence on hard power, Trump’s words highlight the enduring dilemma of whether the UN can transcend its rhetorical limits to achieve genuine global governance and legitimacy.

Trump’s 2025 UN address and its context

Trump’s 2025 UN speech combined sharp criticism with paradoxical support. On the one hand, he castigated the UN for issuing statements without enforcement power, arguing that civilians in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan could not be saved by “strongly worded communiqués”. His rhetoric was uncharacteristically direct, positioning himself as a voice for “common sense” against what he described as “diplomatic theatre”. On the other hand, he insisted that the US remains “100% behind the UN”, calling its potential for peace “so great”. This dual stance reflects both deep skepticism and the reluctant acknowledgment of the UN’s symbolic and diplomatic value. His speech therefore operated as both a rebuke and a reluctant embrace, a strategy typical of Trump’s political style, which thrives on tension and contradiction.

This contradiction mirrors Trump’s broader political persona: he thrives on disruption and directness, but also recognises the optics of leadership within global institutions. His critique is grounded in real frustrations, yet it also functions as a political tool. By positioning himself as the truth-teller who ‘says what others think’, Trump casts the UN as ineffective, while simultaneously reaffirming US primacy in international affairs. Importantly, the speech came at a moment when the US was seeking to reassert dominance after years of contested multipolarity involving China, Russia, and regional blocs. Thus, the critique of “empty words” was as much about asserting American leadership as it was about exposing institutional flaws. The rhetoric was crafted to resonate domestically, reinforcing Trump’s populist message that American strength must not be diluted by endless talk, while internationally, it projected the US as a reluctant but essential guarantor of world order.

The UN’s structural weaknesses

Central to Trump’s charge is the UN’s structural design, which often leaves it unable to respond effectively to conflicts. The Security Council’s (SC) veto power allows permanent members to block resolutions that threaten their national interests or those of allies. This mechanism has paralysed the UN in conflicts like Syria, where Russia has vetoed numerous resolutions condemning its support of former Syrian President Dr. Bashar al-Assad, or Palestine, where the US has routinely shielded Israel from critical resolutions. In such cases, the SC becomes a stage for geopolitical rivalry rather than a platform for conflict resolution. The result is frequent inaction, accompanied by statements that carry symbolic weight but fail to alter the reality of violence on the ground.

Peacekeeping forces, another pillar of UN operations, are similarly constrained by their reliance on voluntary contributions of troops and funding. Missions in places such as the Democratic Republic of Congo or South Sudan often struggle with underfunding, ill-defined mandates, and the lack of political will from contributing States. Without the independent enforcement capacity, the UN remains hostage to the willingness of its members, particularly the most powerful, to provide resources. Trump’s dismissal of “empty words” is therefore not entirely misplaced; it reflects the very real limitations of an institution caught between its founding ideals of “saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and the structural realities of State sovereignty and great-power rivalry. The tension between aspiration and ability is precisely what fuels accusations of irrelevance.

The role of words in international relations

Although Trump dismisses UN rhetoric as hollow, scholars of international relations argue that words are not meaningless. Diplomatic statements, resolutions, and norms create expectations that shape state behaviour over time. For instance, the UN’s role in codifying human rights (HR) through the Universal Declaration of HR and subsequent treaties has gradually established global standards that States feel compelled to acknowledge, even if they do not always comply. Similarly, UN resolutions condemning apartheid in South Africa contributed to global pressure that ultimately isolated the regime and hastened its collapse. These examples suggest that rhetoric, when sustained and combined with other pressures, can generate significant long-term change.

Still, Trump highlights the limits of this normative power when it collides with hard military realities. In Gaza, where both Israeli and Palestinian actors remain locked in existential conflict, UN appeals for ceasefires are routinely ignored. In Ukraine, where Russia has pursued military objectives despite overwhelming international condemnation, SC resolutions have proven ineffective. These cases illustrate that while words may shape the long-term legitimacy of actors, they rarely stop immediate violence. Trump’s critique forces scholars and policymakers to confront this uncomfortable truth: while rhetoric matters in constructing legitimacy and future norms, it cannot substitute for enforcement mechanisms when wars are underway. The UN’s value therefore lies in its capacity to sustain norms and legitimacy, but its weakness lies in its inability to compel compliance in real time.

Trump’s preference for hard power

Trump’s foreign policy reflects his conviction that leverage, not persuasion, drives results. He has consistently favoured sanctions, tariffs, and threats of military action over lengthy negotiations. His “maximum pressure” approach toward Iran, renewed in 2025, exemplifies this philosophy: economic coercion is presented as a substitute for endless dialogue. Similarly, in his 2025 UN speech, Trump endorsed the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s right to shoot down Russian aircraft if they violated allied airspace, signaling a preference for deterrence backed by immediate consequences. These statements underscore a worldview in which force, or at least the credible threat of it, is the only language that compels adversaries to alter their behaviour.

Yet, this approach risks sidelining the UN and undermining multilateralism. By privileging unilateral or coalition-based enforcement, Trump reinforces the perception that the UN is merely a talking shop. Critics argue that this undermines international legitimacy and weakens collective mechanisms for global governance. While unilateral hard power may yield immediate results, it can create long-term instability by eroding the legitimacy of international norms. Moreover, Trump’s preference for ‘action over words’ risks conflating force with effectiveness, ignoring cases where diplomacy and symbolic statements have successfully de-escalated crises. The deeper clash, therefore, is between Trump’s realist insistence on material power and the UN’s institutional reliance on persuasion and legitimacy.

Towards reform: Reconciling words and deeds

Trump’s critique, though harsh, underscores the need for reform. If the UN is to avoid irrelevance, it must reduce its dependence on symbolic resolutions and strengthen its enforcement capacity. Proposals for reform have long circulated, ranging from restricting or modifying the use of the veto, to creating regional rapid-response forces capable of intervening in crises, to developing binding arbitration processes for disputes. Each of these reforms would serve to transform words into commitments backed by consequences. Without such reforms, the UN risks perpetually producing statements that may shape international norms but fail to alter immediate realities.

At the same time, reform requires member States, especially powerful ones like the US to invest political and financial capital. Trump’s dismissive tone risks weakening the very institution that he demands results from, as his rhetoric may encourage States to disengage rather than reform. A constructive approach would be to align his critique with tangible reforms: ensuring that UN declarations carry material consequences, that peacekeeping mandates are adequately resourced, and that accountability mechanisms exist for noncompliance. In short, words must be linked to deeds, but deeds must also be legitimised by words. Reconciling these functions would not only address Trump’s critique but also reinvigorate the UN’s credibility.

Conclusion: Empty words or necessary diplomacy?

Trump’s phrase “empty words don’t stop wars” resonates because it captures a long-standing frustration with the UN’s tendency to produce lofty declarations without corresponding impact on the ground. For civilians in conflict zones, rhetorical condemnations and ceasefire calls that collapse within hours provide little relief, underscoring the systemic weakness of international diplomacy since the UN’s founding. Yet, dismissing the UN as mere rhetoric ignores its role in shaping global norms, building discourse, and sustaining long-term diplomatic frameworks. The challenge therefore, is not to abandon words but to ensure that they are matched by credible action, particularly where human lives are at stake. The truth lies between Trump’s blunt realism and the UN’s aspirational diplomacy: words alone cannot halt artillery fire, but force alone cannot sustain peace. By exposing the fragility of international institutions, Trump’s rhetoric creates an opportunity to reimagine how the UN can transform statements into meaningful commitments that both address immediate crises and strengthen long-term stability.

(The writer is an attorney and a Senior Law Lecturer at the Colombo University)

…………………………………………………….

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication