川普抨擊聯合國——9月25日的觀察與感想

2025 年 9 月 25 日，星期四。今日的世界新聞仍被川普在聯合國大會的演說所佔據。這場演說不是尋常的外交辭令，而更像是一場震撼的政治表演，帶著尖銳的批評與不加掩飾的怒火。

川普直指聯合國「只會空談」，未能在移民潮、國際衝突與和平斡旋中展現實質作用。他批評美國的努力沒有得到聯合國支持，並聲稱這個組織不過是華麗的場面，缺乏真正的行動力。更具挑釁意味的是，他將氣候變遷議題斥為「史上最大騙局」，完全否定了國際社群多年來在環境與能源上的努力。對於移民，他以強硬語氣要求各國「關閉邊界、驅逐非法移民」，甚至警告開放政策將毀滅一個國家的文化與主權。

在演說開始前，會場還發生了插曲：電扶梯突然停止，提詞機也一度無法運作。川普將此視為聯合國的象徵性「混亂與失靈」，當眾冷嘲熱諷。雖然聯合國隨後澄清問題乃因安全機制與操作疏漏，但這些細節卻被川普用來加強其批判，讓整場演說更添戲劇色彩。

然而，值得注意的是，儘管言辭激烈，他也並非全盤否定聯合國。他在談及核武與生化武器擴散時，承認聯合國若真正具備行動力，仍可在防止災難方面扮演關鍵角色。這一轉折，透露出他並非要徹底摧毀聯合國，而是以批判作為施壓，要求這個組織「有實際行動」。

思索與反省

川普的演說顯然會激起不同層面的反應。在國內，支持者會拍手叫好，將此視為對全球主義與國際規範的強力反擊；而在國際上，許多國家與外交官則難免感到受辱，甚至視此為對多邊合作基礎的挑戰。

對我而言，這場演說更像是一面鏡子，映照出國際秩序正處於搖擺不安的時刻：一方面，全球性的危機——氣候、難民、戰爭——確實需要跨國協調；另一方面，民族主義與單邊主張卻日益高漲，使得「合作」這個詞逐漸蒼白無力。

如果各國真的如川普所言，各自築牆、封鎖邊境，未來的世界或許會更安全一時，卻也會更孤立、更對立。國際社會若失去信任與協作，面對下一場疫情、下一波戰爭，還能否有力量共同應對？這是我今日最深的憂慮。

Trump’s Attack On The United Nations — Reflections On September 25

Thursday, September 25, 2025. Today’s headlines are still dominated by Donald Trump’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly. It was no ordinary diplomatic address, but rather a jarring political performance—sharp in tone, unapologetic in anger.

Trump accused the UN of being “nothing but talk,” ineffective in tackling worldwide migration crises, international conflicts, and peace negotiations. He complained that American-led efforts had received little support from the organization, portraying it as a grand stage devoid of real action. With characteristic bluntness, he dismissed climate change as “the greatest con job in history,” undermining years of international effort on environmental and energy cooperation. On migration, he urged nations to “close their borders and expel illegal immigrants,” warning that open-door policies would destroy national cultures and sovereignty.

Even before the speech began, mishaps set the tone: an escalator suddenly stopped with Trump and his wife on it, and the teleprompter failed to function properly during his presentation. Trump seized on these glitches as symbolic of UN “chaos and dysfunction,” mocking the institution in front of the world. Though UN officials later clarified that the escalator was stopped by a safety mechanism and the teleprompter was controlled by the U.S. delegation, Trump’s theatrics made sure the details played in his favor.

Yet, it is worth noting that his speech was not an outright call to dismantle the United Nations. When addressing the dangers of nuclear and biological weapons proliferation, he admitted that a UN capable of real action could still play a crucial role. His rhetoric suggested not so much destruction, but rather pressure—demanding that the UN prove its value through decisive deeds.

Reflections

Trump’s words are bound to resonate differently across the diverse global audiences. At home, his supporters will cheer the tough stance, framing it as resistance against globalist pressures. Abroad, however, many diplomats and governments are likely to feel insulted, viewing his language as an affront to multilateralism.

To me, this speech felt like a mirror held up to the world. On one side there are pressing global crises—climate, refugees and war that positively require cross-border collaboration. On the other side nationalism and unilateralism are surging, making “cooperation” an increasingly fragile notion.

If nations follow Trump’s call to build walls and shut borders, the world may feel more secure in the short-term, but will grow more divided and isolated. Without trust and coordination, how will humanity face the next pandemic, the next war, or the next shared threat? That is the question that lingers in my mind tonight—the deeper growing unease beneath the headlines.