UN failure: United we fall !

The current situation in Gaza which is witnessing heavy Israeli bombing in retaliation for the terrible attack carried out by Hamas in Israel on October 7 is once again profiling the ineffectiveness of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in maintaining international peace and security. Israel’s action has already led to the death of over 6000 persons including children and women. Ironically, all this is happening as October 24 marked, in the words of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, “78 years since the UN Charter entered into force”.

UNSC’s specific mandate is to maintain international peace and security. The UN Charter has empowered it to do so. It can take action under Chapter 7 of the Charter’s provisions to compel all member-states to adhere to its decisions. Yet, it has consistently failed to uphold and implement its mandate. The reason for its failure lies in the essential compromise which sits at its core: that any action which it takes should be in harmony with the interests of its 5 permanent members (P5). The P5, China, France, Britain, Russia and the United States who were the victors of the Second World War empowered themselves with the right to veto any decision of the Security Council. Thus, if anyone of them felt that a UNSC resolution was harmful to its interests it could simply veto it. That has been done since UN’s establishment. This has paralysed the Council more often than not.

This has also been demonstrated during the current Israel-Hamas conflict. A resolution moved by Brazil on October 18 which is currently a non-permanent member of the Council calling for “humanitarian pauses for full, safe and unhindered for UN Agencies and their partners” to access Gaza was vetoed by the United States. The world’s pre-eminent power which is entirely on Israel’s side in this round of the conflict wanted time for diplomacy to play out. Perhaps it did not want the sheen to be taken of the 8-hour visit of its President Joe Biden to Israel. Initially, Biden was also due to travel to Amman to meet with the Fatah leadership as well as those of Jordan and Saudi Arabia. But that leg of the visit was cancelled because of the bombing of a hospital in Gaza which led to the death of 500 patients and doctors. On its part Israel has denied that it bombed the hospital. However, its claim that the hospital was bombed by a malfunctioning Hamas rocket has been refuted by the group. Be that as it may the denial of ready and full access to UN personnel to provide humanitarian assistance even in times of war should never take place. This does not detract from the horror of the Hamas attack.

Israel has called for the resignation of the Guterres. It is angered by Guterres’s briefing on the Gaza situation on October 24. While roundly condemning Hamas’s attack in which innocent women, children and the aged were killed and more than 200 were taken back to Gaza as hostages Guterres also said “It is also important to recognize that the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum”. He went on to add “The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation”. He also said that “collective punishment” was not permitted. Israel’s assertion is that Guterres by particularly using the formulation “did not happen in a vacuum” has sought to provide a cover or a justification for what Hamas carried out. It is also incensed with charges of imposing “collective punishment” through its bombings.

The use of words, their placement in formulations, indeed also the non-use of some words or phrases sometimes are of great diplomatic significance. This is especially so during conflict or volatile situations. They are all the more important when it comes to long-standing conflicts where there are layers upon layers of accusations and grievances. In such cases it is prudent to use neutral words that would calm situations instead of being construed by one of the parties as provocative. This is especially important for international civil servants and there is no doubt that the UNSG is the senior-most global civil servant. His office is of crucial significance and it should always be directed by the incumbent to be used in the cause of peace and that is not best served by exacerbating situations. This does not mean that the UNSG should refrain from condemning terrorism and calling out terrorist groups but he should be more circumspect when it comes to member-states. In this case Guterres should have avoided stating that the Hamas attack did not take place “in a vacuum”. He could have made all the points relating to the historical plight of the Palestinians without using this “joining” formulation. That would have been effective without giving Israelis the opportunity to seek to divert attention by calling for his resignation.

After Israel has vented its anger against the UNSG it would be advisable for it to recognize that despite its best efforts the narrative has now moved away, to a large extent, from the Hamas attack to the Israeli response. Of course, Israel is trying is best to retain international focus on the inhumane nature of the Hamas attack but it is inevitable that many countries are now asking Israel to exercise restraint. It is unlikely that it will do so. Its political and security classes are determined to exterminate Hamas. They are no doubt conscious that Israeli armed forces will have to pay a heavy price to do so. The US, in addition to Israel, does not want a wider conflict. It is unlikely that a regional conflagration will take place. However, when events are in the saddle no firm predictions can be made.