Comparative Analysis of Prabowo and Trump’s UN General Assembly Speeches: Pros and Cons

September 24, 2025

New York, NY – A stark contrast in perspectives emerged during the 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, September 23, 2025, as President of Indonesia Prabowo Subianto and former United states President donald Trump delivered thier respective addresses.Analyses demonstrate basic disagreements regarding the role of the United Nations, the urgency of climate change, and the handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Differing Views on the United Nations

Former President Trump voiced skepticism about the effectiveness of the United Nations, asserting that the United states had independently achieved resolutions in several international conflicts, including those between Israel and Iran, Cambodia and Thailand, and armenia and Azerbaijan. Conversely, President Prabowo firmly advocated for the continued importance and essential function of the UN in maintaining global peace and security.

“The speeches presented a clear dichotomy,” noted a legal expert from Universitas Indonesia. “While one leader questioned the very utility of the institution, the other reaffirmed Indonesia’s commitment to its principles and collaborative efforts.”

Climate Change: A Point of Contention

The divide extended to the crucial issue of climate change.Trump dismissed climate change as “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.” This statement sharply contrasted with president Prabowo’s strong emphasis on the reality of climate change, especially its impact on Indonesia, a nation highly vulnerable to its effects. Indonesia is currently planning the construction of a 480-kilometer seawall to mitigate rising sea levels, demonstrating the nation’s commitment to addressing this challenge.

Did You Know? According to the World Meteorological Organization, the past decade was the warmest on record, with 2023 being the hottest year ever recorded.

Israel-Palestine Conflict: Opposing Stances

Further divergence surfaced regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Trump condemned nations supporting Palestinian independence and sovereignty, while President Prabowo unequivocally expressed support for a two-state solution, suggesting that recognition of Israel should be contingent upon recognition of Palestine. This position aligns with internationally recognized principles for a lasting peace.

The following table outlines the key points of contrast between the speeches of President Prabowo and former President Trump:

Issue	President Prabowo’s Position	Former President Trump’s Position
Role of the UN	Strongly supports and values the UN	Questions the UN’s effectiveness
Climate Change	Recognizes it as a real and pressing threat	dismisses it as a “con job”
Israel-Palestine Conflict	Supports a two-state solution with mutual recognition	Condemns support for Palestinian independence

Pro Tip: Staying informed about international affairs requires seeking out diverse perspectives. Consider sources from different regions and political viewpoints to gain a extensive understanding.

Prabowo’s Affirmation of International Cooperation

President Prabowo underscored the meaning of the United Nations as a vital international body. He emphasized that without the UN, nations would lack the security and peace they currently experience. “We need the united Nations, and Indonesia will continue to support the United Nations,” he stated, acknowledging ongoing national struggles while highlighting the global need for unified international action.

The Evolving Role of the UN in the 21st Century

The United Nations, established in 1945, has consistently adapted to address evolving global challenges. From peacekeeping operations to humanitarian aid and sustainable development initiatives, the UN remains a central forum for international cooperation and dialog. However, its effectiveness is often debated, particularly in light of geopolitical shifts and the rise of national interests.

The increasing complexity of global issues requires innovative approaches to multilateralism.Addressing challenges such as climate change,pandemics,and economic inequality demands greater collaboration and a renewed commitment to the principles enshrined in the UN Charter.

Frequently Asked Questions about the UN General Assembly

1. What is the UN General Assembly? The UN General Assembly is the main deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the United Nations.
2. What issues were discussed at the 80th session? Key topics included global peace and security, climate change, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
3. What was President Prabowo’s key message? President Prabowo emphasized the vital role of the United Nations in ensuring global peace and security.
4. What was former President Trump’s stance on the UN? Former President Trump expressed skepticism about the UN’s effectiveness.
5. Why is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a contentious issue? The conflict’s long history and complex political dynamics make it a highly sensitive and debated issue on the international stage.
6. How is Indonesia impacted by climate change? Indonesia is highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and is actively working on mitigation and adaptation strategies
7. What is a two-state solution? A two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict envisions an independent state for both Israelis and Palestinians.

What do you believe is the most pressing challenge facing the United Nations today? How can international cooperation be strengthened to address global issues effectively?

Share yoru thoughts in the comments below and help us continue the conversation!

how did Prabowo and Trump’s differing rhetorical approaches-diplomatic vs. populist-impact their ability to foster international cooperation?

Rhetorical Approaches & National interests

Comparing the UN General Assembly (UNGA) speeches of Prabowo Subianto (Indonesia, 2024) and Donald Trump (USA, 2018-2020) reveals stark contrasts in rhetorical style and prioritization of national interests. While both leaders positioned themselves as strong advocates for their respective nations, their methods and core messages differed significantly. Analyzing these differences provides insight into evolving global leadership trends and the impact of nationalistic versus multilateral approaches to international relations. Key search terms include: UNGA speeches, Prabowo Subianto, Donald Trump, international relations, nationalism, multilateralism, foreign policy analysis.

Prabowo’s Emphasis on South-South Cooperation & regional Stability

Prabowo’s 2024 UNGA address centered on themes of South-South cooperation,ASEAN centrality,and Indonesia’s commitment to regional stability. His speech, delivered with a measured tone, focused on:

* economic Equity: Advocating for fairer global trade practices and increased investment in developing nations. He highlighted Indonesia’s own economic progress as a model for others.

* Climate Change Mitigation: Emphasizing the need for collective action on climate change, particularly focusing on the vulnerabilities of island nations and developing countries.

* Peacekeeping & Conflict Resolution: Reiterating Indonesia’s long-standing commitment to UN peacekeeping operations and its role in mediating regional conflicts.

* Digital Inclusion: Promoting equitable access to technology and digital infrastructure as a driver of economic growth and social growth.

Pros: Prabowo’s approach resonated with many developing nations, fostering a sense of solidarity and shared purpose. His focus on practical solutions and regional cooperation was seen as constructive and pragmatic.

Cons: Critics argued that the speech lacked concrete commitments and specific policy proposals. Some observers felt it was overly focused on Indonesia’s regional role and did not adequately address broader global challenges.

Trump’s “America First” Doctrine & Direct Criticism

Donald Trump’s UNGA speeches, in contrast, were characterized by a distinctly nationalistic “america First” doctrine.He consistently prioritized US interests above multilateral cooperation and frequently employed direct criticism of other nations and international organizations. Key elements included:

* Sovereignty & National Interest: Repeatedly asserting US sovereignty and its right to pursue its own interests without external interference.

* Trade Imbalances: Accusations of unfair trade practices and demands for renegotiation of trade agreements.

* Burden Sharing: Criticism of allies for not contributing their “fair share” to collective security and defense.

* Direct Confrontation: Directly challenging the policies of countries like Iran and North Korea, often employing strong rhetoric.

Pros: Trump’s supporters lauded his willingness to challenge the status quo and prioritize American interests. His directness was seen as a refreshing departure from conventional diplomatic norms.

cons: His confrontational style alienated many allies and undermined international cooperation. Critics argued that his “America First” approach weakened the US’s global leadership role and created instability. The focus on bilateral deals over multilateral agreements was also widely criticized.

Communication Styles: Tone and Delivery

The differences in communication style were equally pronounced. Prabowo adopted a diplomatic and conciliatory tone, emphasizing common ground and shared values. His delivery was measured and purposeful, projecting an image of stability and competence. Trump, conversely, favored a more populist and confrontational style.His speeches were frequently enough filled with hyperbole, personal attacks, and unsubstantiated claims. His delivery was energetic and often unpredictable, appealing to his base but alienating many international observers. Relevant keywords: political rhetoric, speech analysis, diplomacy, populism, communication strategies.

The Impact of Framing: Global Challenges vs. national Grievances

The way each leader framed global challenges also differed significantly. Prabowo presented issues like climate change and economic inequality as shared problems requiring collective action. He emphasized the interconnectedness of nations and the importance of multilateral solutions. Trump, though, tended to frame global challenges as threats to US interests. He frequently enough portrayed international organizations as biased against the US and emphasized the need for unilateral action to protect american sovereignty. This framing resonated with his domestic audience but hindered efforts to build international consensus.

Case Study: Responses to the Ukraine conflict

The contrasting approaches were further highlighted in their responses to the Ukraine conflict. Prabowo, while upholding Indonesia’s principle of non-interference, consistently called for a peaceful resolution through dialog and diplomacy, emphasizing the humanitarian impact of the war. Indonesia actively participated in international efforts to mediate a ceasefire. Trump, during and after his presidency, offered ambiguous statements, sometimes appearing to sympathize with Russia and questioning the level of US support for Ukraine.This divergence underscored their fundamentally different views on international security