Follow Us on Google
By Ndukwem Ogwo
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) is designed to be one of the world’s most important arenas for international dialogue. It is the place where sovereign states, irrespective of size, military strength or economic power, are expected to meet, speak, listen, disagree and negotiate under a common institutional framework.
Yet, the increasingly visible practice of delegations walking out when another country’s leader is speaking raises an important question: what does a walkout at the UN General Assembly say about the strength, authority and responsibilities of the United Nations itself?
The question has acquired renewed relevance following the walkouts during the 2026 General Assembly. On September 22, 2026, the Cuban delegation walked out during U.S. President Donald Trump’s address after he sharply criticized Cuba’s political system. The incident followed a broader pattern of diplomatic walkouts at the UN, including the large-scale departure of diplomats during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2025 General Assembly address.
A walkout may be an understandable diplomatic protest. But when representatives of sovereign states repeatedly leave the hall rather than listen to a speaker with whom they disagree, it deserves examination beyond the immediate political dispute.
The UNGA is supposed to be a forum for disagreement
The General Assembly is not a parliament in the conventional national sense. It is a forum in which 193 sovereign states participate, each with one vote. The UN itself describes the Assembly as its principal deliberative, policymaking and representative organ.
That distinction is important.
The United Nations was not created on the assumption that its members would agree. It was created precisely because they would disagree.
The Charter gives the General Assembly broad authority to discuss questions within the scope of the Charter and to make recommendations to member states and, where appropriate, the Security Council. Article 11 specifically empowers the Assembly to discuss matters concerning international peace and security, while Article 14 permits it to recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of situations that may impair international welfare or friendly relations among nations.
Consequently, the presence of disagreement in the Assembly is not evidence of failure. Disagreement is part of the reason the institution exists.
The challenge arises when disagreement begins to undermine the very process through which disagreement is supposed to be managed.
A walkout is more than leaving a room
Diplomatic walkouts are not new. Governments have historically used them as symbolic instruments of protest. A delegation can communicate displeasure without interrupting a speech, engaging in confrontation or creating a procedural crisis.
In that sense, a walkout can be understood as a form of diplomatic expression.
But its meaning depends on context.
A delegation walking out may be saying: We reject the speaker’s position. It may also be saying: We consider the speaker’s conduct or policies unacceptable. In other circumstances, it may be intended to attract international attention to an issue that the protesting country believes is being ignored.
The problem is that repeated walkouts can also contribute to a political environment in which the UN becomes less a place for engagement and more a theatre for demonstrating pre-existing alliances and antagonisms.
That distinction matters because diplomacy depends not only on the right to speak but also on the willingness to listen.
Does a walkout weaken the United Nations?
Not necessarily.
The United Nations does not lose its legal existence or Charter-based authority because delegates leave a chamber during a speech. The General Assembly continues to deliberate, vote, adopt resolutions and perform its other functions.
Indeed, the Charter provides the Assembly with considerable responsibilities. These include consideration of the UN budget, election of members of various UN bodies, consideration of international peace and security, promotion of international cooperation, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and consideration of reports from other UN organs.
Therefore, a walkout by itself should not be exaggerated into evidence that the UN has become irrelevant.
The deeper concern is cumulative.
If member states increasingly treat the Assembly as a place to demonstrate solidarity with friends and rejection of adversaries, the deliberative culture necessary for multilateral diplomacy can gradually suffer.
The physical presence of diplomats does not guarantee meaningful diplomacy. But sustained absence can become a visible manifestation of declining willingness to engage.
The difference between protesting and refusing dialogue
There is an important distinction between protest and dialogue.
Diplomacy does not require governments to endorse what they hear. A representative can listen to a speech, strongly disagree with it, issue a rebuttal, vote against a proposal, request the right of reply or pursue negotiations elsewhere.
These are all instruments of diplomatic engagement.
A walkout, by contrast, removes the protesting delegation from the immediate conversation.
There may be circumstances in which this is justified as a political signal. But from the standpoint of multilateral diplomacy, it also raises the question of whether the protesting state is willing to engage with an opposing argument.
The strongest international institutions are not necessarily those in which everyone agrees. They are those in which disagreement can occur without destroying the channels through which disagreement can be managed.
The UN cannot compel political courtesy
It would also be unrealistic to expect the United Nations to prevent every delegation from walking out.
Member states are sovereign. The General Assembly’s authority is derived from the UN Charter, and the Assembly operates through established procedures rather than through the personal authority of its presiding officers.
The Charter gives each member state one vote in the General Assembly. Important questions require a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, while other questions are generally decided by a majority.
The UN therefore cannot simply impose agreement.
Nor should it necessarily attempt to prevent peaceful forms of diplomatic protest.
The responsibility of the institution is instead to ensure that the Assembly remains a credible venue for discussion, negotiation and collective decision-making.
The larger problem is the gap between deliberation and action
There is, however, a more fundamental challenge than walkouts.
The strength of the UN should not be measured primarily by whether diplomats remain seated during speeches. It should be measured by whether the organisation can translate international deliberation into meaningful action.
This is where the structure of the UN becomes particularly important.
The Security Council, rather than the General Assembly, has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security under Article 24 of the Charter. The members of the UN have also agreed under Article 25 to accept and carry out Security Council decisions made in accordance with the Charter.
The General Assembly nevertheless has significant powers of deliberation and recommendation. In circumstances where the Security Council is unable to act because of a negative vote by a permanent member, the Assembly can also operate under the “Uniting for Peace” framework to consider threats to peace and recommend collective measures.
The institutional question, therefore, is bigger than whether diplomats walk out.
It is whether the UN possesses sufficient political authority, institutional effectiveness and member-state cooperation to respond to the crises about which its members passionately debate.
When powerful states dominate the conversation
Another issue is the unequal distribution of power within international politics.
In principle, every UN member has one vote in the General Assembly. In practice, however, states differ enormously in military capability, economic resources, diplomatic influence and geopolitical reach.
This creates a tension at the heart of the UN system.
The General Assembly represents sovereign equality, but international politics does not operate according to sovereign equality alone.
The five permanent members of the Security Council—the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom—possess veto power on substantive Council decisions. This means that a state with enormous geopolitical influence can have institutional leverage that a smaller state does not possess.
Consequently, a walkout by a small state and a walkout by a major power may have very different political consequences, even though both are formally expressions of diplomatic protest.
This is one reason why continuing discussions about UN reform remain important.
Walkouts can also reveal the vitality of international disagreement
There is another side to the argument.
A walkout can demonstrate that international diplomacy remains politically alive.
A completely silent General Assembly would not necessarily be a stronger institution. It could instead indicate indifference.
When states react strongly to speeches, policies and international controversies, it demonstrates that the issues being debated matter to them.
The challenge is therefore not to eliminate disagreement or protest.
The challenge is to prevent disagreement from becoming a substitute for diplomacy.
A walkout should ideally be followed by engagement: a rebuttal, negotiation, mediation, voting, coalition-building or another peaceful diplomatic process.
Otherwise, the walkout risks becoming political theatre without contributing to problem-solving.
What responsibility do member states have?
The debate should not place the entire burden on the United Nations Secretariat.
Member states created the organisation. They finance it. They occupy its organs. They formulate its resolutions. They elect its officials. They determine, through their political choices, how effective the organisation can become.
The UN Charter’s purposes include maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations, achieving international cooperation and serving as a centre for harmonising the actions of nations.
These purposes cannot be achieved by the Secretariat alone.
Member states must therefore ask whether their conduct inside the Assembly contributes to or undermines these objectives.
Walking out may sometimes communicate an important diplomatic message. But listening to an adversary does not constitute surrender. Sitting in the same room does not constitute endorsement.
Indeed, the ability to listen to an opponent without abandoning one’s own position is one of the foundations of diplomacy.
What should the United Nations do?
The UN could strengthen the culture of constructive engagement in several ways.
First, the General Assembly should continue to protect the right of states to express disagreement, including peaceful diplomatic protest.
Second, the Assembly leadership should encourage a stronger culture of substantive response rather than symbolic confrontation. States that disagree should be encouraged to use established rights of reply and debate.
Third, the UN should strengthen mediation and dialogue mechanisms around major international disputes. The Assembly already possesses significant deliberative and recommendation powers under Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the Charter.
Fourth, long-standing institutional reform questions should not be ignored. The credibility of the UN depends partly on whether its structures adequately reflect contemporary geopolitical realities.
Finally, member states should distinguish between political disagreement with a government and rejection of the multilateral system itself. The former is normal diplomacy; the latter can gradually weaken the institutions through which international disputes are peacefully managed.
Beyond the spectacle of the walkout
The image of diplomats leaving the UNGA chamber is powerful because it is visual. It can dominate news coverage and social media.
But international politics should not be judged solely by dramatic images.
The more important question is what happens after the cameras stop recording.
Do governments negotiate?
Do they mediate?
Do they vote?
Do they compromise?
Do they pursue peaceful settlement?
Do they implement agreed resolutions?
Do they protect civilians and uphold international law?
These are ultimately more important measures of the strength of the United Nations than whether every delegate remains seated throughout every speech.
Conclusion
The United Nations was established in the aftermath of catastrophic global conflict to provide an institutional framework through which states could address disputes without automatically resorting to war. Its strength has always depended on an uneasy combination of law, diplomacy, political will and cooperation among sovereign states.
A walkout at the General Assembly is therefore neither automatically a sign of UN failure nor merely an insignificant diplomatic gesture.
It is a symptom of the tensions inherent in multilateral diplomacy.
States have the right to protest. They have the right to disagree. They have the right to reject policies they consider unacceptable. But the United Nations derives much of its value from keeping adversaries in the same diplomatic space.
The real danger is not that countries sometimes walk out.
The real danger would be a world in which countries cease to believe that there is value in remaining in the room.
For the United Nations to remain relevant, its member states must preserve that room—not as a place where everyone agrees, but as a place where disagreement can be confronted through dialogue rather than through isolation, coercion or conflict.
The ultimate strength of the United Nations, therefore, may lie not in its ability to prevent countries from talking out, but in its ability to keep open the door through which they can eventually return to dialogue.
• Iroakazighi Ogwo, Centre for Critical Thinking, Teaching and Learning (CCTTL), Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna. 0803966387/ [email protected]
