The United Nations marked its 78th birthday on Tuesday, but had little cause for celebration. UNRWA, the agency for Palestinian refugees, warned of an increasingly desperate humanitarian situation in Gaza, with fuel for desalination and electricity generation plants almost exhausted. On the same day, Israel called for António Guterres to resign over his remarks on the Israel-Hamas war, and accused him of “blood libel”.
An immense institution affords the man at its head very limited power. His role is to mobilise resources, via UN agencies, and to use his platform as a pulpit. In his second term, Mr Guterres has become blunter, issuing clarion calls on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the climate emergency. But the challenges that he and the institution face are mounting – and are both underscored and exacerbated by the current crisis. UNRWA cannot do its job when relentless bombardment has killed 35 of its staff – as well as more than 6,500 others in Gaza, according to the Palestinian ministry of health – and when only a trickle of aid is getting through. Mr Guterres cannot do his job when member states tear him down.
The secretary general unequivocally condemned the horrific attacks by Hamas on 7 October, which left at least 1,400 dead in southern Israel, said that nothing could justify the deliberate harming of civilians and urged the release of the more than 200 hostages reportedly held by Hamas. He also denounced what he called clear violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza and said that the attacks by Hamas “did not happen in a vacuum. The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation.”
Israel has long argued that it is unfairly treated at the UN. Though the secretary general’s central message was clear and right, his speech was in places poorly drafted at a time of great sensitivity. The Israeli ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan, turned on the secretary general so strongly that the criticism, rather than the plight of civilians in Gaza and growing calls for a ceasefire, dominated headlines. But 10 years ago, it would have been hard to imagine the contempt radiating from Mr Erdan’s announcement that UN representatives would be refused visas because “the time has come to teach them a lesson”. That surely reflects the organisation’s reduced status.
Beyond the unquestionable institutional issues of bloat, inefficiency and lack of accountability lies the problem of a political structure that was set up after the second world war having to navigate current geopolitics. The security council is characterised by deadlock. Its five permanent members are increasingly cleft into US-Britain-France and China-Russia camps. India, African nations and others demand a better seat at the table.
The UN’s challenges are exemplified by competing, failed resolutions on the Middle East. They included a US-sponsored motion on Wednesday that, though heavily revised following consultations, called for a humanitarian pause rather than a ceasefire, and a Russian-drafted one that did not mention Israel’s right to self-defence (and which, despite Moscow’s hideous record, piously condemned violence against civilians). The general assembly will vote on a nonbinding resolution on Friday.
As Mr Guterres himself warned last month, multilateral mechanisms are weakening. Yet the need for them is growing. A multitude of conflicts and humanitarian crises grind on around the world. Expectations were already low for this year’s Cop28 climate talks, hosted by Dubai and headed by the boss of the UAE’s national oil firm. The war is underlining divisions between the west and the global south. The UN’s dysfunction reflects the world’s. It has been unable to resolve the biggest crises of recent years. But we need it to try to contain them.
