In 2014 and again in 2022, the United Nations proved to be impotent in preventing or reversing the invasion and annexation of the territory of a sovereign country by one of the five permanent members (P5) of the Security Council. In October 2023, a Hamas terrorist attack on Israel was followed by the invasion of Gaza and the death of tens of thousands of mostly civilian Palestinians. For months, another P5 country – the United States – thwarted a Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire, while providing arms to the Israeli army to continue its destruction.
These are just two of the latest examples of UN failure in keeping the peace. What
makes them both particularly egregious is the role of two of the five permanent members of the Security Council – the United States and Russia – who have wilfully ignored the terms and principles of the Charter. As President Volodymyr Zelensky put it in April 2022: either the Security Council should find a way to find peace or “dissolve yourself altogether.”
The current Secretary General (SG), António Guterres came into office declaiming the importance of conflict prevention, but he has seen some of the most vicious and deadly conflagrations since the founding of the UN. Besides Ukraine and Gaza deadly civil wars have broken out in Yemen, South Sudan, Myanmar and Sudan. As the person elected as the chief custodian of the UN Charter, was there no means at all available to him to prevent or end these conflicts? Moreover, does his initiative the Summit for the Future and the Pact for the Future, a draft document detailing commitment to values ranging from human rights to artificial intelligence, offer a way forward for the UN and the SG who steers in?
Elections and character of the SG remain key
If the answer is no, then it signals the terminal decline of the UN in its peacekeeping role. But there are actions the SG could have taken to prevent these two deadly conflicts from emerging. In fact, in the area of peacemaking, a strong, politically astute and independent-minded SG is the only hope for an effective UN. How he or she is elected and the character of the incumbent are key. In a global survey of UN watchers prior to the 2016 election of António Guterres, one of the highest priorities for the new SG was political independence. While the election process was a more open one than previously, putting an end to automatic regional rotation of candidates, the veto power of the P5 countries was still paramount in the selection and there have been clear signs that Guterres was influenced by the Kremlin in exchange for their approval. On taking office, he agreed to give Russia a new senior counter-terrorism post in New York as well as the top UN position in Geneva. He also agreed to allow the remaining P5 members to keep their Under-Secretary General posts in New York, in contravention of the terms of the Charter which calls for merit-based recruitment and the independence of staff from outside influence (Articles 100 and 101). The changes to the SG election process did not include a single term of seven years which would have given the incumbent more independence rather than spending the initial 5 year term concerned about re-election.
The incumbent SGs have also shown undue favor to the United States. Although
Kofi Annan agreed that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was “illegal,” however, he was ready to establish a mission in Baghdad at the behest of the US. When Israel invaded Gaza in 2023, the US repeatedly delayed and opposed a Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire to save Palestinian lives and allow delivery of adequate humanitarian aid. When a resolution for a permanent ceasefire was finally approved in June 2024, the US declared it to be non-binding, which is contrary to the Charter.
SG has the tools to take stronger stances in conflicts
What could a stronger and more independent-minded SG have done to oppose the
Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Israeli slaughter in Gaza? Aside from expressions of regret and reminders of the contraventions of the UN Charter, the SG could have used his good offices to seek more vigorously for the “pacific settlement of disputes” under Chapter VI. One month after the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, both sides were negotiating for a settlement in Istanbul – but the UN, which could have been a neutral arbiter, was absent. Similarly, the parties in the Gaza conflict have had no recourse to UN mediation, despite the fact that there are no fewer than three long-standing peacekeeping missions in place: UNTSO (1948), UNDOF (1974) and UNIFIL (1978), and a huge humanitarian presence through the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). Their marginalization has just added to the sense of UN redundancy.
The terms of the Charter also enable the SG to take action even when the P5 threatens to use its veto power. Article 99 of the Charter empowers the SG to “bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” Combined with Article 27.2, the SG can work with the president of the Security Council to designate decisions as “procedural” for which an affirmative vote of only nine members is required. He could also have worked with like-minded countries on the Security Council to neutralize individual P5 members by ensuring that under Article 27.3 of the Charter, those considered parties to a dispute abstained from voting. In the early days of the UN, Council members – including P5 countries – did adhere to this rule. It was mooted again after the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine but none of the ten elected Council members proposed a resolution and the SG did not force the issue.
Security Council reform remains key
In the Pact for the Future being debated in September 2024, one of the proposed Actions (42) concerns Security Council reform and states that “The question of the veto is a key element of Security Council reform. We will intensify efforts to reach an agreement on the future of the veto, including discussions on limiting its scope and use.” Member states do not need another declaration to apply Article 27.3. They just need the political will.
A strong and independent SG could achieve more through aggressive advocacy
within the terms of the Charter and by mobilizing the substantial staff and financial
resources of the UN system. But the current stance of the veto-wielding P5 countries is a hindrance. It was not always so. In a debate on Security Council reform in 2024, the Russian representative described the veto as “not a privilege, but a serious factor for ensuring consensus and effectiveness of Security Council decisions … the backbone of the coherent work of the Council, a guarantee against an arbitrariness of unilateral actions against the interests of the UN members, on whose behalf the Council acts.”
Only a return to committed multilateralism by all member states will see the UN survive and thrive.
Stephen Browne is a visiting lecturer at the University of Geneva, founder and co-director of the Future United Nations Development System (FUNDS) project, and former principal management adviser to the UN Industrial Development Organisation. He previously spent more than 30 years in the UN system, half of that time on country assignments. He was UN Representative in newly-independent Ukraine and in Rwanda. From 2006 until 2009, he was Deputy Executive Director of the International Trade Centre in Geneva.
