川普抨击联合国——9月25日的观察与感想

2025 年 9 月 25 日，星期四。今日的世界新闻仍被川普在联合国大会的演说所佔据。这场演说不是寻常的外交辞令，而更像是一场震撼的政治表演，带着尖锐的批评与不加掩饰的怒火。

川普直指联合国「只会空谈」，未能在移民潮、国际冲突与和平斡旋中展现实质作用。他批评美国的努力没有得到联合国支持，并声称这个组织不过是华丽的场面，缺乏真正的行动力。更具挑衅意味的是，他将气候变迁议题斥為「史上最大骗局」，完全否定了国际社群多年来在环境与能源上的努力。对於移民，他以强硬语气要求各国「关闭边界、驱逐非法移民」，甚至警告开放政策将毁灭一个国家的文化与主权。

在演说开始前，会场还发生了插曲：电扶梯突然停止，提词机也一度无法运作。川普将此视為联合国的象徵性「混乱与失灵」，当眾冷嘲热讽。虽然联合国随后澄清问题乃因安全机制与操作疏漏，但这些细节却被川普用来加强其批判，让整场演说更添戏剧色彩。

然而，值得注意的是，儘管言辞激烈，他也并非全盘否定联合国。他在谈及核武与生化武器扩散时，承认联合国若真正具备行动力，仍可在防止灾难方面扮演关键角色。这一转折，透露出他并非要彻底摧毁联合国，而是以批判作為施压，要求这个组织「有实际行动」。

思索与反省

川普的演说显然会激起不同层面的反应。在国内，支持者会拍手叫好，将此视為对全球主义与国际规范的强力反击；而在国际上，许多国家与外交官则难免感到受辱，甚至视此為对多边合作基础的挑战。

对我而言，这场演说更像是一面镜子，映照出国际秩序正处於摇摆不安的时刻：一方面，全球性的危机——气候、难民、战争——确实需要跨国协调；另一方面，民族主义与单边主张却日益高涨，使得「合作」这个词逐渐苍白无力。

如果各国真的如川普所言，各自筑墙、封锁边境，未来的世界或许会更安全一时，却也会更孤立、更对立。国际社会若失去信任与协作，面对下一场疫情、下一波战争，还能否有力量共同应对？这是我今日最深的忧虑。

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.