By Dulmi Thimansa
On Wednesday, October 2, Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz declared United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres persona non grata, banning him from entering the country. Katz justified the move on the grounds that Guterres had supposedly failed to “forcefully condemn” Iran’s missile attacks on Israel. He added that anyone who “cannot unequivocally condemn Iran’s heinous attack… does not deserve to set foot on Israeli soil.”
The move came as the world was bracing for the first anniversary of the October 7, 2023, Hamas operation, which left more than 1,100 Israelis dead. In the aftermath of that attack Israel has been conducting an all-out war in Palestine and Lebanon. This has left more than 42,000 Palestinians and 2,000 Lebanese civilians dead.
The latest campaigns, which have seen the assassination of top Hamas and Hezbollah figures, including Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, have attracted censure even from Israel’s allies, including France. Talking to journalists after a meeting with US, German, and French heads of state, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated that “the world will not tolerate any more excuses” regarding Israeli humanitarian assistance to Gaza.
Far from condoning Israel’s decision to ban the UN Secretary-General, many of these allies, with the exception of the United States, have released official statements censuring it. When asked about Washington’s position on Israel’s decision, US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller replied, “We don’t find that step to be productive in any way”, adding that “the UN does incredibly important work in Gaza.” He further stated that “when it’s acting at its best, [the UN] can play an important role for security and stability.”
The decision to declare Guterres persona non grata, combined with what many see as Israel’s impunity in its ongoing military campaigns in Palestine and Lebanon, as well as the threat of a larger war involving Iran and its allies, have raised legitimate questions about whether the UN has become a toothless body, incapable of de-escalating conflicts. While such concerns have been raised before during times of crisis and conflict – including the Sri Lankan civil war – the Israel-Palestinian War has brought them to the fore.
With a membership of 193 states, the United Nations, formed in 1945 right after World War II, was founded with the primary objectives of preserving peace and security, fostering friendly relations among nations, and promoting social progress. However, when examining the current global order and the numerous conflicts that have arisen since its inception, the effectiveness and role of the organization is quite questionable.
Historically, the UN has played a significant role in mediating peace efforts, advocating for adherence to international agreements, and delivering humanitarian aid when required. The organization has been instrumental in facilitating dialogue between conflicting parties and promoting the principles of diplomacy and cooperation on a global scale. It has striven hard to maintain peace and enable cooperation on other fronts, including health.
However, in the contemporary context, the influence exerted by major powers, along with the varying interests of member states, has emerged as a critical concern impacting the efficacy of the UN’s resolutions and decision-making processes. The Security Council, for instance, depends on absolute unanimity; a veto by one member is enough to strike down any resolution no matter how well-intentioned. The US has repeatedly vetoed several resolutions on Gaza, as have Russia and China, over the wording of these resolutions.
In other words, interplay of political agendas and national interests among influential member states often hampers the UN’s ability to act decisively. The Security Council in particular has turned into little more than a political theatre in the eyes of its critics. At the same time, with its original membership intact, it has been seen as not being representative enough of the world today. India is vying for a seat, as are Latin American countries. Both these countries, like Africa, have effectively been sidelined from the Security Council.
Conversely, it can be argued that the United Nations is indeed undertaking efforts within the constraints imposed upon it, despite significant limitations that challenge its effectiveness. Various UN agencies, such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), have been actively involved in providing essential humanitarian aid, particularly to Palestinian communities severely affected by the recent intensification of hostilities. These efforts are part of the UN’s broader response to alleviate the humanitarian crisis, reflecting its commitment to addressing the urgent needs of vulnerable populations.
Additionally, the UN has consistently called for adherence to international human rights standards and an immediate cessation of violence from all parties involved. Despite these appeals, however, compliance has often been minimal, and calls for restraint and respect for human rights frequently go unanswered.
At the same time, by passing resolutions and holding in-depth discussions, the UN General Assembly has contributed somewhat to the resolution of Israel-Palestine War. The Assembly acts as a world body, in contrast to the Security Council, and is far more representative of the Global South’s moral clout than the latter. The recently held session at the UNGA demonstrates how the bulk of world opinion has piled up against Israel’s actions. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in fact, took to the podium to condemn the UN in the most vehement terms, rhetoric that was swiftly criticized by other world leaders.
To confront the growing violence, the General Assembly has called extra sessions and called for prompt ceasefires and the delivery of humanitarian relief to impacted communities. The Assembly’s broad support for Palestinian rights and its continued dedication to pursuing a diplomatic solution to the issue are reflected in these resolutions.
The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has also played a significant role in monitoring situations happening in the Israel-Lebanon border during the recent attacks happened. UNIFIL has increased its patrol to ensure the cessation of hostilities and to maintain stability. This monitoring has also resulted in dialogues between Israel and Lebanese forces to address the security concerns and mitigate tense situations.
As an international body tasked with upholding global peace and human rights, the UN’s role in such conflicts is obviously critical. The United Nations was founded with the goal of preserving world peace, but its efficacy has been questioned. Resolutions supporting peace, a two-state solution, and Palestinian rights have been approved by the UN General Assembly. Yet General Assembly votes, which are more representative and inclusive than Security Council resolutions, do not have the force that the latter do.
The Israel-Palestine War has underscored the need for reform within the United Nations. Yet as the world’s response to Israel’s rash actions against its Secretary-General indicates, despite debates over what must be done in places like Gaza, the international community of powerful nations are aware of the ramifications of going completely beyond the UN’s framework. That even Israel’s allies, in the West, have criticized its decision to ban Guterres in a way vindicates the UN’s raison d’être: to maintain peace at a time of war.
Dulmi Thimansa is a youth research intern currently working at Factum. She is a student of international relations and diplomacy. She can be reached at dulmi@factum.lk.
With inputs from Uditha Devapriya, Chief Analyst – International Relations at Factum.
Factum is an Asia-Pacific-focused think tank on International Relations, Tech Cooperation, and Strategic Communications accessible via www.factum.lk.
The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the organization’s.
