A family collecting hygiene kits from Maliha, in Eastern Ghouta, Rural Damascus, Syria. The distribution provided essential items to mostly Syrian and Lebanese families who had fled from the south of Lebanon. Credit: Norwegian Refugee Council
OSLO, Norway, Nov 13 2024 (IPS) – “The shockwaves from Israel’s ongoing and indiscriminate warfare on Gaza and Lebanon are reverberating across this entire region. Neither the horrific assault on Israeli civilians on 7 October 2023, nor the indiscriminate missiles launched by militant groups from Lebanon, can justify the degree of destruction on civilian lives and infrastructure in the region that I have witnessed in recent days.
We cannot wait another day for an end to this senseless violence. For the sake of children across the entire region, diplomacy must result in a sustainable ceasefire.
The people I have met in recent days–from those in Gaza City, to the displaced in eastern Lebanon, to those crossing into Syria–longed for peace so they could return home. Children spoke of how much they missed school and their friends, and parents wished for an end to the precarity and suffering that displacement has brought. The suffering of millions cannot begin to end until those in power push for peace and take action to end the violence.
What I witnessed in Gaza was a society shattered by advanced weaponry, with ongoing military strikes relentlessly impacting the civilian population. War has rules, and it is clear that the Israeli campaign has been conducted with utter disregard for international humanitarian law.
As Gaza has been reduced to rubble, Western leaders have largely stood by unwilling to apply the necessary pressure on the stronger party, Israel, to stop starving the population that they are besieging and bombarding.
In Lebanon, I met people who in just a couple of weeks have lost their homes, jobs and everything in between. They are now staying in almost bare shelters that offer neither protection nor privacy, in fear that the worst is yet to come. The temperature has dropped substantially. People are ill-prepared for what promises to be the coldest winter season for the hundreds of thousands displaced.
Travelling into Syria from Lebanon via the Masnaa border crossing, I saw the huge challenges facing those fleeing violence in Lebanon, exacerbated by vast craters in the road caused by Israeli strikes. Displaced people must be provided with safe passage, shelter, and services.
Those fleeing into Syria arrive in a country with deep, pre-existing economic and humanitarian crises. NRC is providing support to those arriving in Syria, people who took the impossible decision to leave their homes while facing bombardment, and left with only what they could carry.
The aid we and others are currently able to provide is totally insufficient for the needs our staff are seeing. We must be given the right to independently monitor how those who flee from Lebanon to Syria are treated. There must be robust international support to meet people forced to flee, and there must be a genuine, re-energised diplomatic effort from all sides, to halt violence against civilians.
My visit started in Gaza, continued in Lebanon, and finished in Syria, tracing the fallout of this now regional conflict. At each point, the people I met said they wished for only one thing: peace.
Jan Egeland is Secretary General of the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC). This article follows his visit to Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.
NRC teams are operating across Gaza, Lebanon and Syria providing essential services to displaced people. This includes items such as mattresses, blankets and hygiene kits as well as cash. We are also providing clean water and sanitation facilities as well as education to children.
ATLANTA, USA, Nov 11 2024 (IPS) – For religious, humanitarian, and scientific reasons, Israel’s increasingly apparent plan for the de facto colonization of the Northern Gaza Strip is a bad idea. When that program was rejected recently by Israel’s own Defense Minister Yoav Galant, he was summarily fired by Prime Minister Netanyahu.
However, the founding document of the worldwide Jewish community, the Torah, and especially the Decalogue, states plainly, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife…or anything that is thy neighbors.” If religion still means anything to people in the modern nation of Israel, it should be clear that whatever belongs to others should be left alone and neither coveted nor stolen.
For obvious humanitarian reasons the one-sided bombing of Gaza must stop. After more than a year of an ongoing holocaust in Gaza, Israel’s relentless bombing has produced casualties totaling nearly 150,000 dead and wounded people, mostly civilians.
Now with UN sources reporting that starvation is setting in, people everywhere must demand that this racist, inhumane bloodshed stop immediately. Otherwise, international law has no force and the word “humane” has no meaning.
In scientific terms, the contamination of the water, soil, and air in northern Gaza from explosive dust, including Depleted Uranium, will clearly persist for decades, if not generations. That is neither good for the inhabitants if they manage to return to their homes, nor for the Jewish colonists if they should return to their previous colonies in the strip.
US bombing of Iraq two decades ago, especially in and around Basra, as much scientific and eyewitness testimony—including my own on the scene report—proves, has produced a plethora of birth defects.
The idea of some capitalists that Gaza will become a future Dubai—a wealthy trade zone that will be a veritable Las Vegas on the Mediterranean shore—is actually a good one. Geographically and commercially, Gaza is a potential Hong Kong.
The only thing wrong with the plan is the question of who will control this mighty future entrepot, the Palestinians, investors from the Gulf States and the West, or Israel? Answering that will take another century of bloodletting.
Far better that the United States, NATO, the United Nations, the International Court of Justice in the Hague or somebody other than HAMAS or the extreme right wing and increasingly bloodthirsty Likud government now in power in Jerusalem should deal with that issue and guarantee justice.
The ICJ/International Court of Justice, responsible governments everywhere, and especially the campus protesters and those on the streets of cities around the world, must keep chanting, “NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!” “NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!”
James E. Jennings, PhD is President of Conscience International and Executive Director of US Academics for Peace
In Khan Younis, thousands of people are fleeing for their lives again. Credit: UNRWA
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 8 2024 (IPS) – When the United Nations imposes sanctions or penalizes a member state – be it the General Assembly or the Human Rights Council – the resolutions are “non-binding” and often remain unimplemented.
But the Security Council resolutions are “binding” – and still openly violated by countries such as North Korea—because all these UN bodies have no means of implementing these resolutions, nor a standing army to forcibly enforce them. But they only carry moral weight.
The Council can also impose its own sanctions, mostly in economic, financial and trade sectors, against violators of its decisions.
And last week there was a move to impose arms sanctions against Israel – and rightly so, judging by the 43,000 plus, mostly Palestinian civilians, killed in Gaza largely with US-supplied weapons since October last year.
But how effective will this be since the strongest opposition will come from the US, an unyielding supporter of Israel, which will unhesitatingly use its veto power if the resolution comes before the Security Council?
Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, a former UN Under-Secretary-General and one-time Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the United Nations, told IPS anything short of a real, permanent ceasefire would not create a pathway to end the perpetration of the ongoing genocidal aggression by Israel.
In this context, he said, the joint letter calling on all countries to stop the sale of arms and ammunition to Israel, signed by 52 countries and two UN-recognized multilateral organizations, is meaningfully forward-looking, and contains a purposeful objective of contributing to that “pathway”.
In fact, the Foreign Minister of Turkiye, whose country initiated the letter, asserted that “We must repeat at every opportunity that selling arms to Israel means participating in its genocide.”
“It would be argued rightfully that the United Nations and its apex body, the General Assembly have no powers to enforce such an arms embargo. The Security Council, the sole UN entity which can authorize an arms embargo and obligate the arms suppliers desist from sending arms to the areas of conflict, also becomes powerless if one of the P-5 uses the notorious veto”.
“However, I strongly believe that a General Assembly resolution following the call for the arms embargo to Israel would have a moral value which has its own merit. Despite the politics and power-play which is destroying the UN’s credibility and marginalizing its operational capacity to resolve conflicts, the arms embargo would highlight the principled position taken by the UN,” said Ambassador Chowdhury.
In a way, he pointed out, that would strengthen the Secretary-General’s efforts to promote the much-needed ceasefire.
In the aftermath of Israel’s declaration of the Secretary General as persona non-grata (PNG) and its extension of the attacks on UNIFIL in Lebanon, the General Assembly needs to show that its moral and normative role as envisaged in the UN Charter has not been cowed down by the politics of the frequently-used threat of veto, he declared.
Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, who has written extensively on the politics of the Security Council, told IPS: “This initiative reflects the view of the vast majority of the world’s governments and peoples and is consistent with imperatives of international humanitarian law, but given that the major arms supplier of Israel is a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, it is unlikely to have much of an impact.”
Also problematic, he pointed out, is that some of the countries sponsoring the initiative, such as Russia and Saudi Arabia, have been guilty not only of similarly providing weapons to those engaging in war crimes but engaging in war crimes themselves.
Turkiye’s foreign minister Hakan Fidan said last week his country had submitted a letter to the United Nations, signed by 52 countries and two inter-governmental organizations, calling for a halt in arms deliveries to Israel.
“We have written a joint letter calling on all countries to stop the sale of arms and ammunition to Israel. We delivered this letter, which has 54 signatories, to the UN on November 1,” said Fidan, according to the Times of Israel.
“We must repeat at every opportunity that selling arms to Israel means participating in its genocide,” said Fidan, adding that the letter is “an initiative launched by Turkiye.”
Among the signatories were Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Algeria, China, Iran and Russia, plus the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC),
Elaborating further, Ambassador Chowdhury said the UN should not forget that the UN’s International Court of Justice which determined that Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank is illegal under international law. The judgment was followed by a General Assembly resolution last September, demanding Israel leave the occupied territories within a year.
“I am encouraged by the UN’s own 45 Human Rights Experts and Special Rapporteurs, who, driven by their conscience, forcefully called for a ‘permanent ceasefire, … an ‘arms embargo on all warring parties,’ and ‘the deployment of an international protective presence in the occupied Palestinian territory under the supervision of the UN.’ All these well-thought-out measures would only promote dialogue and diplomacy over death and destruction”.
The UN Secretary-General needs to endorse and welcome this call by his in-house experts and recommend to the General Assembly to do the same without any delay, he declared.
Back in April 2024, in a resolution adopted by 28 votes in favour, six against and 13 abstentions, the 47-member Human Rights Council backed a call “to cease the sale, transfer and diversion of arms, munitions and other military equipment to Israel, the occupying Power…to prevent further violations of international humanitarian law and violations and abuses of human rights”.
Presented by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, delegates heard that the resolution had also been motivated by the need to stop “egregious” human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Co-sponsors of the text included Bolivia, Cuba and the State of Palestine, ahead of the vote which saw support from more than two dozen countries including Brazil, China, Luxembourg, Malaysia and South Africa, according to UN News.
Unlike the UN Security Council, Human Rights Council resolutions are not legally binding on States but carry significant moral weight, and in this instance is intended to increase diplomatic pressure on Israel as well as potentially influence national policy decisions.
Israel’s two largest arms sources, the United States and Germany, have resisted calls for an embargo on Israel, though each has been accused of withholding certain arms during the war.
In an October 2024 report, the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI) said in the past decade, Israel has greatly increased its imports of arms. SIPRI estimates that in the five-year period 2019–23, Israel was the world’s 15th largest importer of major arms, accounting for 2.1 per cent of global arms imports in the period. In 2009–13 it ranked only 47th.
Although only three countries supplied major arms to Israel in 2019–23, the United States, Germany and Italy, many others supplied military components, ammunition or services. The three other global major arms exporters among the top 10: the United Kingdom, France and Spain.
‘Endless nightmare’ of death and destruction in Gaza, UN officials tell Security Council. July 2024. Credit: UNRWA
GENEVA, Nov 4 2024 (IPS) – While the expansion of democracy is a key condition for peace, the Achilles’ heel of democracies is that their leaders are constrained by electoral calendars, forcing them to push for peace or delay, whereas autocracies can afford to play the long game to achieve the favorable outcomes they desire.
Take, for example, the current wars in Ukraine and the Middle East: U.S. leadership may be influenced by the approaching November elections, skewing policy decisions, while autocratic leaders of rival powers can be confident in their long-term tenure.
To be clear, this does not suggest that we should abolish democracy. Quite the opposite—more democracy and more bottom-up scrutiny of leaders are needed, as outlined below.
Short-termism lies at the heart of several misconceptions within Western democracies that complicate peacebuilding efforts. One such misconception is the “better the devil you know” mentality, which has long been used to justify support for brutal regimes in exchange for short-term gains.
From the Cold War to the present, global powers have backed dictators and militias, prioritizing strategic influence over human rights. For instance, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, once an international outcast, was quickly embraced by Western leaders after making some concessions.
However, such cynical realpolitik is not only morally wrong but counterproductive. Supporting autocrats for short-term diplomatic or economic gains only fuels anti-Western sentiment. Recent research shows that U.S. military aid to dubious regimes has often backfired, leading to more, not fewer, terrorist attacks from those nations. Instead of supporting despots, Western nations should focus on promoting long-term peace through jobs, representation, and security.
These are the true foundations of stability, and investing in them is far more effective than cutting deals with dictators. In the end, helping to build peaceful societies is a far better investment than propping up corrupt regimes.
Short-termism has also frequently prompted leaders to prioritize quick cash transfers—often subject to embezzlement—over policies that enhance long-term economic productivity and resilience in fragile countries. The belief that financial aid can “buy” peace is a common misconception.
Peace cannot simply be bought; it must be “invested in” through the development of human capital and productive capacities. Large sums of money, like oil revenues, often fuel corruption and conflict in unstable states. Countries such as Venezuela, Sudan and Nigeria have suffered from the “resource curse,” where abundant resources become a source of instability rather than prosperity.
Similarly, foreign aid, when poorly managed, can have unintended negative consequences. Studies indicate that U.S. food aid can sometimes exacerbate conflict in recipient regions, as armed groups divert resources for their own benefit. This is not to say that Western democracies should abandon aid. Instead, they should focus on smarter investments in education and healthcare, which reduce incentives for violence.
Human capital cannot be stolen, and improvements in education and health increase employment opportunities, diminishing the motivation for conflict. Investing in people is the best path to sustainable peace.
A third common misconception in conflict resolution is that winning over “hearts and minds” should come first, with security following later. This is again driven by short-termism, as providing services may be quicker than establishing security. The theory is that by providing amenities and increasing local support, tensions will ease. However, this approach rarely works in practice.
When people’s basic safety is at risk, they prioritize security over services or political ideals. Research in places like Iraq shows that security and basic infrastructure must be established first—without them, no other policy can succeed. For instance, the Dayton Agreement in Bosnia successfully ended a brutal war and prevented its resurgence, largely thanks to international peacekeepers.
Offering security guarantees to all parties is essential for bringing armed factions to the negotiating table and laying the groundwork for lasting peace. Without security, efforts to win hearts and minds are doomed to fail.
After examining these misconceptions that jeopardize peace efforts, my new book, The Peace Formula: Voice, Work, and Warranties, Not Violence, outlines the solid fundamentals for achieving sustainable peace in the long term, based on hundreds of empirical studies.
First, there is a growing body of evidence that a democratic voice makes a crucial difference. When citizens have political rights, civil liberties, and their preferences are considered, their incentives for violent attacks on the state diminish.
Every regime in history has eventually felt the need to extend political rights or collapsed. Even autocratic Rome was forced to extend citizenship beyond Italy to survive for a few more centuries. Long-term stability and peace are impossible when citizens are treated as slaves.
Similarly, a strong and productive economy is another prerequisite for lasting peace. Having a fulfilling, well-paid job makes it much less tempting to join a warlord or enlist as a volunteer in a brutal war. These higher opportunity costs of abandoning work for warfare form the second pillar of sustainable peace and stability.
Finally, security guarantees are crucial. When the state lacks a monopoly on legitimate violence over its territory, power vacuums typically give rise to warlords, organized crime, and insurgents that challenge state authority. Consider the rise of the mafia in historical Sicily or the situation in Somalia today. Security is one of humanity’s basic needs, and if a state is too weak to provide it, UN peacekeeping troops must be ready to step in when invited.
If the academic literature increasingly provides clear answers on what needs to be done, why then are the components of a peace formula not consistently implemented? While we can point to successful examples of post-conflict reconstruction, such as Germany and Japan after World War II, the list of failed states and aborted democratization efforts is equally long.
The problem can be reduced to the concept of “smart idealism.” It isn’t rocket science. The issue with “smart idealism” is twofold. First, the “smart” aspect is relatively new. Many of the scientific insights underpinning the above arguments—such as the failure of supporting bad regimes and the importance of human capital—are based on cutting-edge research. Only recently has empirical evidence shown that cash handouts can backfire and that “winning hearts and minds” is futile without basic security.
Second, the “idealism” aspect is a tough sell. Peacebuilding is a long-term commitment that requires significant investments. After World War II, the Allies transformed Germany, Japan, and Italy into functioning democracies, but it came at a steep financial cost. The fear of another world war motivated these efforts.
Today, however, few political leaders are willing to commit such resources to nations like Somalia, where the political payoff is uncertain, and re-election prospects at home may be harmed. Additionally, most politicians operate within short-term electoral cycles, bringing us back to the issue of “short-termism.”
Their incentives favor projects with immediate returns, not long-term peace investments that would benefit their successors. In the short term, shady deals with despots may seem politically advantageous, even if they prove disastrous later.
Are these roadblocks insurmountable, or can we do something about them? Yes, we can! Rather than relying solely on elected officials to make the right choices, civil society must apply pressure, advocating for democracy globally. Ordinary citizens have historically driven positive change—think of the movements that dismantled South African apartheid.
Despite global setbacks in democracy over the past decade, fighting for sound, evidence-based policies remain essential. Democracies may falter, but they have an extraordinary capacity to recover, drawing on the remnants of past democratic capital, as Argentina’s history demonstrates. As Abraham Lincoln famously noted, “Those who shall have tasted actual freedom I believe can never be slaves, or quasi slaves again.”
Dominic Rohner is a globally recognized authority on armed conflict and peacebuilding. He serves as Professor of Economics at the Geneva Graduate Institute, where he holds the prestigious André Hoffmann Chair in Political Economics and Governance, and is also a Professor at the University of Lausanne. He holds a PhD in Economics from the University of Cambridge, and his pioneering work has earned multiple international awards and accolades.
The UN, which was established to foster global peace and stability, has now become a paralyzed institution that inadvertently contributes to raging conflicts because it is constrained by an archaic structure that no longer meets the dramatically changed world order.
NEW YORK, Nov 1 2024 (IPS) – The United Nations, established in 1945 at the end of World War II, has sadly virtually outlived its usefulness as it commemorated its 79th anniversary due to its failure to reform itself and adjust to the new world order following the collapse of the Soviet Union, which is significantly different from when the UN was established.
The UN’s mission, which is to promote peace and stability, has failed time and again, as many of the current violent conflicts, especially the Ukraine War and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, glaringly demonstrate.
As Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy aptly put it when he asked during his address to the Security Council in 2022: “Where is the security that the Security Council needs to guarantee? … Where is the peace?”
Over the years, scholars and think tanks have offered reformist ideas to make the UN more adaptable and responsive to the changing world order. They have failed primarily because of how the UN was structured and the opposition of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) – the US, Russia, China, Britain, and France – to any significant reforms that could diminish their power.
Offering any comprehensive reforms to the UN is certainly beyond the scope of this column. However, there are some limited reforms that the UNSC can take, without a fundamental change in its structure, to enhance its effectiveness in maintaining global peace.
Before that, it is essential to point out some of the UN’s shortcomings to put into context the limited reforms that can be taken.
The UN Security Council’s structure The UN Security Council’s structure, particularly the veto power held by its five permanent members, often leads to inaction. This power allows any one of these countries to block resolutions, even if there is broad international support. This has resulted in deadlocks on critical issues such as the Syrian Civil War, the Ukraine War, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The killings of civilians and the destruction of cities and towns, particularly by Israel and Russia, are devastating and continue unabated even through the UN and its humanitarian agencies. The International Criminal Court and UN human rights experts have repeatedly called on the Security Council to act. In these cases, the US and Russia’s adversarial relations prevented them from reaching solutions to mitigate these conflicts.
The composition of the Security Council does not reflect current global dynamics, leading to questions about its legitimacy and effectiveness. Calls for reform have been persistent but largely unaddressed due to the reluctance of current permanent members to alter a system that benefits them.
Only one-quarter of the global population is represented by the Security Council. Blocks of countries, including Muslim states, African nations, South American countries, and India, with over 1.3 billion people, are not represented in the SC.
Peacekeeping Constraints The UN peacekeeping missions are often criticized for their limited mandates and resources. Peacekeepers are usually deployed in areas where there is no peace to keep, like Cyprus, Kosovo, and Western Sahara. They are generally not adequately equipped or have the authority to engage in violent operations.
This limitation is starkly evident in regions plagued by terrorism and violent extremism, including the Sahel region in Africa, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Central African Republic, where peacekeepers struggle to stabilize situations without adequate support from powerful nations. In addition, there is often a disconnect between UN mandates and local realities, which complicates peacekeeping efforts.
Peacekeepers may not be adequately trained or prepared to handle complex regional dynamics, leading to ineffective interventions.
Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms The UN often lacks effective enforcement mechanisms for its resolutions. While the Security Council can theoretically impose sanctions or authorize military action, veto power and political considerations frequently prevent decisive actions. This allows countries that are committing crimes against humanity or engaged in war crimes to escape any punitive measures with impunity, even when imposed by the UNSC.
National Interests Over Global Peace The interests of powerful member states often precede collective global security objectives. The major arms-exporting nations are also permanent members of the Security Council, creating conflicts of interest that undermine efforts to resolve disputes where these nations have strategic interests.
This is highly evident in the Israel-Hamas war and Russia-Ukraine wars, where the US, in particular, is providing massive military support. In this context, geopolitical rivalries among major powers hinder consensus on critical issues. For example, China and Russia often align against Western countries on various international matters, leading to a stalemate in effectively addressing conflicts.
Bureaucratic Inefficiencies Slow bureaucratic processes and mismanagement frequently hamper the UN’s operations. These inefficiencies can delay critical humanitarian aid and other interventions necessary for maintaining peace. Addressing these issues would require substantial reforms, particularly within the Security Council, alongside a commitment from member states to prioritize global peace over national interests.
Reforms that Can Enhance Effectiveness of UN Operations Given, however, the insurmountable difficulties in undertaking comprehensive reforms of the UN, it is still possible to reform the UNSC to enhance its effectiveness in maintaining global peace, which involves addressing several key issues. Here are several doable reforms that could rectify some of the problems.
Reform proposals include limiting the use of vetoes, particularly in cases involving mass atrocities or violations of international law. This could include requiring a supermajority for vetoes to be effective or mandating discussions in the General Assembly following a veto.
Regional Representation Ensuring geographic balance and representation of diverse cultures and civilizations is crucial. This could involve creating regional seats that rotate among countries within a region, thereby enhancing representation without significantly increasing the number of permanent seats.
Strengthening the Role of the General Assembly Enhancing the General Assembly’s role in peace and security matters could counterbalance Security Council paralysis. Initiatives like the “Uniting for Peace” resolution allow the General Assembly to act when the Security Council is deadlocked. Given the differing national interests and geopolitical considerations, consensus-building can still be achieved without necessarily compromising national interests.
Non-amendment Reforms Reinterpreting existing UN Charter provisions may allow for more flexible responses to global crises without formal amendments. Such reforms could empower other UN bodies to act when the Security Council cannot.
Balancing Power Dynamics Expanding membership while managing veto power requires careful negotiation to ensure new members do not exacerbate gridlock. There is also concern about maintaining the council’s effectiveness with an increased number of members.
Expansion of Membership Increasing permanent and non-permanent members is a widely discussed reform. This expansion could include adding new permanent members without veto power, such as countries from underrepresented regions like Africa, Latin America, and Asia. The G4 nations (Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan) and African countries have been prominent candidates for permanent seats.
Although there is broad agreement on the need to reform the UNSC, achieving that involves piloting multifaceted geopolitical landscapes and balancing various national interests. That said, incremental changes, especially those not requiring formal amendments to the UN charter, may offer a feasible path forward.
If the UNSC does not adopt some of these reforms, the UN will virtually outlive its usefulness, especially in the area of conflict resolution, where the daily horrific death and destruction around the world attests to its dismal failures.
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 1 2024 (IPS) – The United Nations continues to be virtually paralyzed – and remains politically impotent amidst two raging conflicts—as Russia and Israel keep defying the world body.
The killings of civilians and the destruction of cities, particularly by Israel, are devastating and continue despite repeated warnings from the UN, its humanitarian agencies, the International Criminal Court (ICC), UN human right experts and the Security Council.
Which prompts the question: has the UN outlived its usefulness –even as it commemorated its 79th anniversary on the annual UN Day on October 24?
The United Nations, which has failed to help resolve some of the world’s ongoing and longstanding civil wars and military conflicts—including Palestine, Afghanistan, Yemen, Western Sahara, Myanmar, Syria, and most recently, Ukraine—was challenged by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during his address to the Security Council last April.
And he rightly asked: “Where is the peace that the United Nations was created to guarantee? And where is the security that the Security Council was supposed to guarantee?
The repeated US calls for a ceasefire by Israel have fallen on deaf ears—even as violations of the UN Charter continue with accusations of war crimes and genocide in Gaza since October 7 last year.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, an Asian diplomat, was right on target, when he told IPS the countries that violate the UN charter and commit war crimes are “rogue nations” and should be driven out of the world body.
But that will never happen with a Security Council empowered with vetoes.
Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director, Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) told IPS the UN Security Council has served as the principal obstacle to global peace and security, hindering rather than helping efforts to end conflicts around the world.
Both the United States and Russia have used their veto power to ensure the wars they support, whether Russia’s conflicts in Ukraine and Syria, or the US supported wars in Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen, continue.
Without ending the veto power of these two global powers that are fomenting the worst conflicts in the world, the UN will continue to be a toothless and discredited institution, Whitson declared.
Dr Ramzy Baroud, a journalist and Editor of The Palestine Chronicle, told IPS the question of whether the United Nations has outlived its usefulness or not, depends on how we choose to comprehend the initial formation and the original purpose of the organization.
“If we believe, and many rightly do, that the UN was formed to protect the interests of those who emerged victorious following the devastation of WWII, then, largely it has succeeded in its mission.”
Indeed, the UN, especially its executive branch, the Security Council, has mainly reflected the balances of global power, which, until recently, was mostly titled in favor of the US and its western allies, he said.
Though this is somewhat changing, he pointed out, the US continues to prove that it is still capable of being a major obstacle before allowing the institution to serve even a nominal role in imposing international and humanitarian laws on guilty parties, the likes of Israel.
“However, if we subscribe to the misconception that the UN existed as a global guarantor of peace through the generation and implementation of international laws, then there is no question it has miserably failed”, he declared.
Responding to a question at a press briefing early October, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said: “Well, when people talk about the failures of the UN, my question back to you is, which UN are you speaking about?”
“Are you speaking about the inability of the Security Council to come together on critical issues? Are you speaking about Member States not respecting and not implementing resolutions? Are you speaking about Member States not upholding the rulings of the International Court of Justice, which every Member State has signed up to?”
And are you speaking about the Secretary-General feeling that you think he’s not doing enough or his humanitarians are not doing enough? So, I think those types of questions are extremely valid, but I think one has to examine which part of the organization you’re speaking about,” said Dujarric.
On the margins of the BRICS Summit in Kazan on October 24, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres met with Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation and reiterated his position that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was “in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.”
But Russia’s response went unannounced—even as violations continue.
Responding to a question at a press conference in Colombia on October 29, Guterres said: “We need peace among ourselves. That is the reason I’ve been asking, in line with the Charter, in line with international law, and in line with the General Assembly resolutions.”
“That is why we have been asking for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, releasing all hostages and massive humanitarian aid to Gaza. That is why we have been asking for peace in Lebanon and peace that respects Lebanese sovereignty and Lebanese territorial integrity and paves the way for a political solution”.
“That is why we have been asking for peace in Sudan, where an enormous tragedy exists,” Guterres said.
Perhaps these are appeals that will continue to remain unanswered.
Elaborating further, Dr Baroud told IPS what is particularly exasperating is that despite its obvious failures, the UN continues to carry on as if it served any other purpose aside from mirroring the existing imbalances of power around the world, and as a publicity platform for the US, Israel and others, who violate international law with complete impunity.
The UN was formed following the atrocities of WWII. Now, it stands completely useless in its inability to stop similar atrocities in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon. There is no moral, let alone rational justification of why the UN in its current form should continue to exist, he argued.
Now that the Global South is finally rising with its own political, economic and legal initiatives, it is time for these new bodies to either offer a complete alternative to the UN or push for serious and irreversible reforms at the currently ineffectual organization, said Dr. Baroud, a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). www.ramzybaroud.net
In an oped piece for IPS Dr. Alon Ben-Meir, a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU), pointed out that the UN Security Council’s structure, particularly the veto power held by its five permanent members, often leads to inaction.
This power allows any one of these countries to block resolutions, even if there is broad international support. This has resulted in deadlocks on critical issues such as the Syrian Civil War, the Ukraine War, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said.
“The killings of civilians and the destruction of cities and towns, particularly by Israel and Russia, are devastating and continue unabated even through the UN and its humanitarian agencies.”
The International Criminal Court and UN human rights experts have repeatedly called on the Security Council to act. In these cases, the US and Russia’s adversarial relations prevented them from reaching solutions to mitigate these conflicts, he pointed out.
Although there is broad agreement on the need to reform the UNSC, achieving that involves piloting multifaceted geopolitical landscapes and balancing various national interests.
That said, incremental changes, especially those not requiring formal amendments to the UN charter, may offer a feasible path forward, said Dr Ben-Meir, who has taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.
“If the UNSC does not adopt some of these reforms, the UN will virtually outlive its usefulness, especially in the area of conflict resolution, where the daily horrific death and destruction around the world attests to its dismal failures,” he declared.
Meanwhile, the UN’s declining role in geo-politics, however, has been compensated for, by its increasingly robust performance as a massive humanitarian relief organization.
These efforts are led by multiple UN agencies such as the World Food Program (WFP), the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN children’s fund UNICEF, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) , the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), among others.
These agencies, which have saved millions of lives, continue to provide food, medical care and shelter, to those trapped in war-ravaged countries, mostly in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, while following closely in the footsteps of international relief organizations, including Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children, international Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), CARE International, Action Against Hunger, World Vision and Relief Without Borders, among others.
