Toothless resolutions. Empty rhetoric. Impotent bystander. All are charges often made of the United Nations and its ability to step in during an international crisis.
Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has finally had enough of shouting from the sidelines about the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Gaza. He unleashed a diplomatic tool last used in 1971 during a conflict that resulted in the birth of Bangladesh. By invoking Article 99 from the UN charter, he is forcing the Israel-Hamas war onto the Security Council’s plate.
Absent a cease-fire within days, public order will break down completely, he said. The situation is catastrophic.
One would have to go back to the Arab uprisings more than a decade ago to try and unpack the UN’s controversial role as an arbiter of peace in the Middle East. Back then, the Security Council voted in favor of military intervention in Libya to protect civilians.
Russia regretted its abstention and President Vladimir Putin has used it as an example of why the West cannot be trusted, saying the resolution was but a thinly disguised ploy to enact regime change and topple Muammar Qaddafi.
Ever since then, the UN decision-making body has pretty much failed to agree on anything. Something has started to shift.
The US has been frustrated by Israel’s conduct of the war against Hamas and worries about the mounting death toll. Typically its role in the UN has been to protect its ally from criticism but last month it withheld its veto to let a resolution pass calling for a humanitarian pause.
Israel has made clear its disdain for the UN and Guterres. It views the multilateral organization as stacked with Arab voices and deeply partisan to the Palestinian cause. It’s called on the UN chief to resign. The days ahead will reveal to what extent Guterres acted alone or whether he coordinated with the US.
Either way, the UN is having a moment. — Flavia Krause-Jackson