Is it possible to reform the United Nations and bring back its key peace role?

A few decision-makers and intellectuals think that the political UN -- read "political", I am not talking about the specialised agencies ---  is something of the XX century, that has lost its relevance and must be re-created or re-invented taking into account the world's new realities. Meaning, they think that the UN secretariat and its departments, as well as the UN Security Council, are unreformable and must be reinvented, taking into consideration the Global South, the new and the emerging superpowers, the increasing role of the regional associations of states, the power of those trillionaire individuals controlling the key social platforms, and also the expectations of the peoples in different parts of the world.

For them, global issues outside peace and security, economic inequalities and human rights, should be dealt either by the specialised agencies or by ad-hoc international conferences and their specific processes. 

Gaza and the international law

The future of Gaza is called Palestine

Victor Angelo

I understand all the concerns and questions about the future of Gaza. I also realize that, in recent days, some confusion has arisen about the new format of its government, once the current situation of destruction and massacres has ended. I have been receiving a flood of calls and inquiries on this matter. But the answer is simple, from the point of view of international practice and the right that each people has to decide on their independence and their form of governance, as long as they respect the Charter of the United Nations and all other norms that regulate international relations.

The territory, even in the state of destruction in which it finds itself, after around fifteen months of systematic bombings, war crimes and a condemnable humanitarian siege, is an integral part of Palestine. International law is very clear on the matter. And there cannot be a so-called “two-state” solution, one Israeli and one Palestinian, if the Gaza Strip is not integrated into Palestinian sovereignty. It is not easy to achieve, we are still very far from a peaceful solution, but there is no room for doubt on the issue. The community of nations has stated on several occasions that the future will only be possible if it manages to establish a Palestinian country that can live in peace with Israel and that is viable.

The population of the Strip has its family and historical roots in the territory. They cannot be forced to abandon Gaza and go live on the periphery of the lives of neighboring peoples, be they Egyptians or Jordanians. Or any others. This is what happened to multitudes of Palestinians in 1948 and from then on until today. It did nothing to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, it transferred a whole series of challenges, difficulties and situations of misery to neighboring countries. One of the nations that has suffered most from successive waves of expulsions of Palestinians from their ancestral lands has been Lebanon. In the mid-20th century it was referred to as the “Riviera of the Middle East”, to use an expression that was in vogue this week. Now, Lebanon is a country in deep crisis, both internally and in its relations with Israel and many Palestinian refugees.

Europe and states that respect international norms must be more assertive when it comes to the Middle East. Starting with the question of Palestine. Anyone who takes these things seriously, without fear and with dignity, knows what it means to be more assertive. Furthermore, we must move away from a logic of hostility and conflict between the peoples of the region. And to enforce the decisions of the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice and respect the mandates of the International Criminal Court. This is the world we aspire to, and it must first apply to Palestine, including the Gaza Strip. We do not want to return to the Middle Ages or resurrect Hitler or Stalin.

Maintaining and enforcing the current ceasefire is the first step. Unfortunately, I don't think it will last, hearing the comments in Washington from Benjamin Netanyahu. But let's hope so. Therefore, to establish real and lasting peace, it will be necessary to design a plan that allows Gaza to be reconstructed, compensate its population and integrate it into a Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority must be encouraged to seriously reform and strengthen itself. It has to become an administration capable of managing a State, far beyond an amalgamation of militants. Illegal settlements must be expropriated and transferred to Palestinian ownership. The order and creation of a legitimate central authority recognized by the Palestinians and the United Nations are fundamental and urgent issues. We need a plan that is acceptable to everyone. It is up to the international community, and not just the European Union or one or another State, to encourage, help and work in this direction. And we should draw on the expertise of UNRWA, the UN’s trusted and highly specialized programme.

This has been, for eight decades, the greatest challenge for the United Nations Security Council. The Council must agree on a solution. Otherwise, the political pillar of the UN will not be able to safeguard what little remains of its reputation and will eventually cease to have any reason to exist. In other words, the Council is about to become just a formal body, powerless in an increasingly complicated, divided and chaotic world. A world given over to the excesses of those in charge of two or three superpowers.

2025: My views and my contribution to the debate

 10 January 2025

A year that calls for common sense, clarity and a lot of courage

Victor Angelo

 

In this first text of the new year, I seek to share some of my vision on the major global challenges that we will have to face in the next twelve months. Some of these challenges come as a continuation of the immense political difficulties that marked the international scene in 2024. Their trajectory in 2025 appears to continue in the direction of worsening. I see the stakes on moderation and peace as extremely complex and difficult, but absolutely necessary.

Added to these concerns are new problems, among which the following stand out: 1) the inequities and madness that the Donald Trump/Elon Musk Administration will introduce into international relations; 2) the acceleration of the use of Artificial Intelligence to respond to the designs and control of the strategic agenda by various imperialisms; and 3) access to power in several Western democracies, and elsewhere, by ultra-reactionary parties inspired by Nazis, fascists or simply xenophobic influences. Austria was, this week, the most recent example of this trend, that is, of the shift in public opinion towards populism and extremist nationalism. Herbert Kickl, leader of the far-right FPÖ party (symbolically called the National Social Party, an appellation inspired by the party of a certain Adolf Hitler), was invited to form a government.

This kind of perspective requires clear and courageous ambitions. Most of our leaders talk a lot, but their statements are vague, even incomprehensible in some cases. They do not understand the current context, nor can they imagine the future. They use the media to sell us the past and to maintain the illusions on which their power is based. It is up to us to combat these attitudes, but it is not easy. Access to the market for realistic and humanist ideas is increasingly narrow. Just look at who has access to airtime to understand how difficult it is to see on any screen who has the courage to dismantle the illusory contexts that serve as a basis of support for the bosses of the main political parties or for the leaders of some regional or global powers.

Anyone who has influence and authority should have at least five major ambitions.

First, peace. It's 2025, not the past. The great powers, but also each one of us, must abandon the idea that problems can be resolved by force of arms and ultimatums. With technological advances, wars only serve to cause the cruellest human suffering.

Second, the preservation of universal values. International law has made enormous progress since 1945. Its principles must be respected. With balance, equally, whether it is country A or B. Double standards lead to the discredit of universal ethics.

Third, respect for the life and fundamental rights of each person. This is the issue that receives the most emphasis when talking to the inhabitants of the most forgotten areas of the world, in the regions where many of the conflicts occur.

Fourth, reduce the underdevelopment gap. After several years of success, we are now moving in the opposite direction. The increase in economic and social disparities is, on the one hand, a source of tension, instability, hostility towards more developed countries, uncontrolled migration and environmental deterioration. On the other hand, it generates racism, xenophobia, contempt and indifference towards the poverty of many.

Fifth, contribute to the revival of the political role of the UN. I do not want to enter the debate about the Secretary-General's room for manoeuvre. But I cannot help but remember the importance of the United Nations Charter. We must insist, repeatedly, on absolute respect for the principles defined there.

The defence of Europe's democracies will certainly be a central issue in 2025. However, reducing the issue to the expansion of our defence industries is a mistake. It is also unrealistic and destabilizing to demand spending that would represent 5% of each State's GDP out of hand. The real challenge is to be able to build a coherent and shared European defence policy, which recognises the main dangers and considers, in a consensual manner, the possible contribution of each country.

This is essentially a political issue. There will be States whose current leaders will feel closer to the enemy than to our regimes of freedom. This year’s debate cannot ignore this reality. We will have to define a common position towards these individuals. There is another key question: to review and update the relations between the US and other NATO members – a subject that deserves a very detailed reflection at the appropriate time.

To start the New Year: reflections about ongoing conflicts

 

2024 is a crucial year, demanding courage and responses to match
Victor Ângelo

 

I spent decades leading United Nations political, peace and development missions. It was at the UN that I grew professionally and learned how to resolve conflicts, some quite serious, in which death and pain lurked behind every dune, tree or rock. I thus gained a broader view of the international system and the way in which the relationship with the Security Council should be carried out. Then, for years, I worked as a civilian mentor at NATO, preparing future heads of military operations, repeatedly highlighting the need to obtain the support of populations and humanitarian organizations in these operations.

Experience taught me the paramount importance that must be given to safeguarding people's lives. When I addressed generals, police force commanders and UN security agents, the priority was to emphasize the value of life. That of ours, who were part of the mission, as well as protecting the lives of others, simple citizens, whether or not suspected of collaborating with the insurgents, and even the lives of enemies.

Nothing can be resolved in a sustainable way if there is not deep respect for the civilian populations living on either side of the barricades, if others are treated as worthless people, to whom access to vital goods, such as mere animals, can be cut off. to slaughter without mercy or mercy. Killing does not resolve any conflict. For every death today, new fighters emerge tomorrow, with even stronger feelings of revenge. The fundamental thing is to create the conditions for peace, open the doors to negotiations and understanding. A retaliatory war is a mistake. It is a retaliatory response, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, inspired by an ancient legal order. Or, in a more current hypothesis, it is a war directed by political leaders who lack common sense and foresight.

I also had in mind, in my guidelines, the wisdom of the brilliant Charlie Chaplin, in the moving character of the clown Calvero. In his film Highlights (1952), Chaplin at one point makes the clown Calvero say that “life is a beautiful, magnificent thing, even for a jellyfish”. Yes, even for a jellyfish, a gelatinous invertebrate for whom few will have any sympathy. I have always thought that this phrase, so simple, should occupy a top place in our way of facing conflicts. Politics only makes sense when it allows everyone to live in freedom and safety.

One of the great challenges of 2024 is to be able to explain this understanding to the medusa, the life and work of the United Nations in a language that certain leaders are able or forced to understand. How can we say this in the perverse and sophistry patois that is said in the Kremlin? How can we express this wisdom in progressive Hebrew or Arabic with accents of peace? How can we make the speech of reconciliation heard by people responsible for conflicts in other regions of the world, taking into account that 2023 was a year of acceleration in multiple expressions of hatred and radicalism?

We have two issues here that will need to be clarified and resolved as quickly as possible.

First, anyone who doesn't understand Charlie Chaplin and the value of life should not be at the head of a nation. The place of war criminals is in The Hague or before a special court created for that purpose, as happened in Yugoslavia or Rwanda. I say this, and I emphasize it, so that there is no doubt, in my capacity as someone who was at the forefront of the founding of the Arusha Court, in Tanzania, established to judge those mainly responsible for the genocide that took place in Rwanda in 1994. The precedents exist and those responsible for the massacres in Ukraine and the Middle East know them. As criminals always fantasize, they may even think that they will escape these trials. At the speed at which things are changing, they should not be calm.

Second, the Secretary-General of the United Nations must go far beyond humanitarian issues. Humanitarian assistance is essential, without a doubt, and cannot be forgotten. But this is something short-term and precarious, as there are many situations of need, tragedies are enormous in various parts of the world, and resources are always scarce. The UN Charter is above all about political solutions. The Secretary-General must maintain tireless dialogue with the parties and present without further delay a peace plan for Ukraine and another for Palestine. Plans that address the roots of the problems, that are based on international law and that courageously point out the political steps that the Security Council must consider.

We have to rise to the very serious challenges that lie ahead, in what has everything to be a crucial year in contemporary history.

Published in Portuguese in today's edition of Diário de Notícias, Lisbon, 5 January 2024. 

Security Council Resolution 2720 on Gaza and its tragedy

 1.        The UN System, under the leadership of the SG, is fast moving to be ready to implement SC res. 2720. This should be acknowledged.

2.        The Israeli government is ignoring the resolution and expanding the military aggression. The SC should draft a new resolution to impose sanctions on key Israeli leaders, in view of their disregard of res. 2720.

3.        This is not just about averting “a greater catastrophe and uphold dignity”. It is also about full respect for international law and the SC’s decisions. The Israeli behaviour violates international law and must be dealt with as such as well.

4.        The peace in the region is about to unravel. This should be mentioned as a major concern.

5.        Hamas leaders must also be prosecuted.

6.       The call for a total and immediate ceasefire must be loud, clear, and express a strong sense of urgency.

7.       Special responsibility lies with the UNSC. We must bring the UNSC back to the centre of key peace processes. Its members, particularly the P5, must show they can force the parties to implement a resolution like the 2720. Enforcement must become a very central priority for the SC.

8.        The humanitarian response should go together with the launching of a political process.

9.        The sovereign rights of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples are unquestionable.

Summits and dangerous choices

The turmoil they want us to get into

Victor Ângelo

 

The UN General Assembly is today expected to re-elect António Guterres for a second term. The first one was not easy, for various reasons, including the fact that Donald Trump has been president of the United States four of the last five years. Trump had not the slightest interest in multilateralism. He was, moreover, unpredictable and oddball in matters of international politics. To appear to be going against his theses would be a kind of political suicide. This greatly reduced the Secretary-General's room for manoeuvre. Guterres then focused on four major areas: the parity agenda, particularly within the organisation, where he successfully implemented a policy of promoting women to senior posts; climate change; humanitarian response; and finding solutions to crises in countries where it did not clash with the permanent members of the Security Council. He also carried out some internal reforms, notably of the UN's organisation chart and representation at country level.   

The second mandate will be even more difficult. The summits of the last few days - G7, NATO, US-EU, Biden-Putin - have shown that we have entered a very complex phase in the global power games. Several conclusions can be drawn from what has been said. None of them puts the United Nations where it belongs, as a platform for convergence between opposing interests. At these summits, certain players have adopted a confrontational line, and others have allowed themselves to be dragged along. Even when the tone is calm, as was the case at the meeting between Biden and Putin, we cannot fall into illusions: each maintains his positions and sees the other as the hostile side. It is a new era of distrust and direct conflict between the superpowers, outside the established international order.

More specifically, bringing the rivalry with China into the military field and openly including it in NATO's agenda is a mistake. It is true that the two paragraphs dedicated in the final communiqué to relations with China are softer than the messages disseminated before and during the meeting. But in essence, we are giving Beijing reasons to strengthen defence cooperation with Moscow and to increase its participation in joint military exercises with the Russians, including in regions close to the European Union's borders. If we have criticisms to make, in the areas of human rights and freedom, of unfair commercial competition, or even when China pushes certain countries into excessive debt, with investments in infrastructure that serve, above all, its own interests, let us make them in the appropriate political forums. 

When you gamble, as you have done all week, on confrontation and bloc politics, you are almost irretrievably compromising the functioning of the United Nations Security Council. The veto then becomes the standard practice. The result is the weakening of the UN and the marginalisation of its leaders, starting with the Secretary-General. And all this is in contradiction with the repeated promises to strengthen multilateralism, which appear in the documents approved at the G7 and NATO meetings.

Soon after his investiture, Biden decided to bring his country back to the United Nations Human Rights Council, as an observer and to make it more relevant. This is a wiser decision than going ahead with the intention of convening a conference of democracies, an issue that was again on the table during summits with allies. Such a conference, which should include the good guys and exclude the bad guys, according to Washington's criteria, would further divide the international community and put the UN in an extremely delicate situation. To help the multilateral system and help defuse the turmoil looming on the horizon, the European Union should not support such an initiative. Nor should it be towed along by any superpower. It is precisely to avoid this that there is a common project and so much talk of deepening European sovereignty. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

Lebanon and the international freezer

 Translation of today’s opinion piece I published in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon). 15 Aug. 2020

From Lebanon to the conflict freezer

Victor Angelo

 

The district of Beja in Southern Portugal and Lebanon have the same territorial area. But the comparison ends there. If on one side we have around 153 thousand inhabitants, on the other there are seven million, who live in one of the most unstable regions of the globe. And they are an extremely fragmented social mosaic, full of rivalries, which subsists at the expense of precarious balances, always ready to be broken. Each segment of society pulls the embers to its sardine. The respective bosses corrupt the system and capture the institutions of governance. To the emergence of more honest leaders, the bosses respond with murder or intimidation, to shut up or push into exile anyone who questions them.

This explains why a country of entrepreneurial people with a high cultural level went through a long civil war, from 1975 to 1990, and has been experiencing a deep national crisis for years. The situation entered an acute phase in October 2019, with thousands of citizens protesting regularly in the streets. The economy and the financial system ceased to function. The central government has become a prisoner of the fierce rivalries that exist between the 18 political-confessional groups that make up the country and which serve as chess pieces in the game of tension between the regional powers, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The situation became catastrophic after the explosion in the port of Beirut. Since then, the country has made the front page of the news and the priority list of the usual powers, thanks in particular to the efforts of Emmanuel Macron. Lebanon will remain on this list as long as international attention is focused on its crisis. Sooner or later a new tragedy will appear somewhere and the country, like others that are also experiencing recurrent national conflicts, will move to the shelf of the forgotten, in the world freezer where so many unsolvable crises are stored and kept frozen. 

In the meantime, emergency humanitarian aid has been announced. It is vital that this aid arrives quickly and is delivered to those who are in a very precarious situation. Here the role of the United Nations organisations is to ensure the credibility of the distribution of humanitarian goods, which must be channelled through Lebanese NGOs. We must avoid political exploitation of this aid, either by internal factions or by donors. That is why I do not think it is too much to remember that humanitarian action aims to save lives, with transparency, without corruption. It has nothing to do with possible changes in the political spider web.

It is true that Lebanon needs to change its political labyrinth. In recent days, a series of proposals have emerged that would place this burden on the shoulders of the international community. Some have suggested a new mandate regime. The country was under a French mandate until 1943 and there are many people in Lebanon, at the grassroots level, who would like this to happen again. That, even with adaptations to the realities of modern politics, would be a thing of the past. It does not correspond to the current vision, which puts the responsibility for change in the hands of national political agents.

Nor do I think it is possible to send a United Nations contingent with a political mission approved by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This part of the Charter allows for the use of military and police force, which would theoretically make the mission more efficient. In reality, it only works if there is a strong enough national political will to change the way the country is run, which seems to be very difficult to achieve in Lebanon. One could use the functions of mediation and facilitation of political dialogue, a role that is increasingly central to the United Nations menu. I just do not believe that Lebanese politicians are ready for such an effort.

So, while some humanitarian aid is being provided and internal political cooling is expected, I fear that Lebanon will join the group of countries that the Security Council's inertia regularly puts in the freezer of conflicts.

 

 

 

 

The UN Charter and its long history

75 years ago, visionary leaders have signed the UN Charter and initiated what they thought would be a world without major wars. Their dream has not been fully realised but the Charter remains a solid pillar of the international order. We cannot discuss international affairs without referring to it. And the UN System is still around and doing important things in some key areas, such as peacekeeping, humanitarian and development assistance, and the promotion of justice and human rights. It could do much more, no doubt. But it is not easy, because of the deep antagonisms that currently exist within the Security Council and the lack of support for multilateral solutions, an approach that is particularly strong in Washington and Moscow. This unfavourable reality might change as we go into 2021, but the shift might not be as deep and wide as some expect. In my view, the best option is to bet on a stronger voice coming from the system itself. Experience has taught me that when the UN leaders opt for an independent and principled approach, they regain the initiative and augment their credibility. For that to happen, they must think about the function they are supposed to perform and less about themselves.

It is true we live an extraordinary complex moment. But the 75 years of presence in the world affairs remind us that history is long and can be better than the difficulties and the pessimism of the times.

Pakistan, India and Kashmir

In January 1957, the Indian Permanent Representative to the UN, V. K. Krishna Menon, spoke for 8 hours, when addressing the Security Council on the situation in Kashmir. That speech remains the longest ever delivered at the UN. It was cut short, if I can say so, because Menon collapsed of exhaustion.

Compared to such feat, yesterday´s 50-minute speech by Pakistan’s Prime Minister was a brief episode. But a striking one, not because of its length – at the UN, it is considered a long speech that goes beyond 35 minutes; this year’s trend has been to have shorter interventions – but because of the words he said. He basically focused on the dispute with India regarding Kashmir. And he talked about the possibility of war between the two countries and made a direct reference to the use of nuclear weapons. Imran Khan stated that Pakistan would go for a nuclear response if there is war and his country is losing it against India.

Such assertion is most upsetting. There is indeed a serious state of cold confrontation between Pakistan and India. The Kashmir situation and Modi’s decision to cancel the autonomy of the region have brought the complexity of conflict to the fore. We have there an extremely dangerous threat to international peace and security. Khan’s words have confirmed it.

Pakistan is getting closer and closer to China. Its dramatic economic situation makes Pakistan very dependent on China’s investments and economic cooperation. China, on the other hand, sees India as a growing competitor. But I can’t believe the Chinese would encourage Pakistan to go for an armed conflict with India. They cannot imagine that such clash would reduce India’s capacity to compete. 

In my opinion, the Chinese should be encouraged to mediate in between both countries. That would have an impact on the easing of the tensions and would strengthen the international standing of China. With the accord of the two antagonistic nations, the Chinese could also bring the matter to the Security Council, to get a greater buy-in for a peaceful way forward.

It is not easy, though. The Indian Prime Minister sees the Kashmir crisis as an internal challenge, a domestic affair. He does not welcome any type of international assistance on the issue. 

That was fine until yesterday, I would retort. With Imran Khan’s dramatic speech at the UN, the issue cannot be anything else but an international matter of great concern. It must be dealt as such and with great urgency. 

Mali and its deep national crisis

This weekend there was another massacre in Mali. This time, the victims were ethnic Dogon villagers living in the central region of the country. It was another tit-for-tat action by another ethnic group, linked to the pastoralist way of life.

The country is moving into a deeper crisis. It all started in 2012, with jihadist radicals operating in the North. Now, it is a more complex situation that combines violence inspired on religious extremism with inter-community ferocious clashes and all types of banditry. To see it as mere Islam-inspired extremism is completely erroneous.

Confronted with such a grave situation, the international community, both through bilateral arrangements and the presence of UN and EU forces, has put most of the emphasis on military operations. A good number of military and police forces have been sent to Mali. That is, in my opinion, unbalanced as a response. It is a hammer approach to an extremely complex political situation.

The UN Security Council will be discussing Mali in the next few days. My message to the members of the Council is very simple: adopt a more political view of the conflict, not just a military-based line. Explore ways of promoting dialogue and joint projects between the ethnic groups of Mali. Have a hard look at economic development. Look at the way the national government addresses inclusiveness and good governance and be frank with the leaders. As friends, we must tell them, in diplomatic but clear words, that they ought to change the way they govern the country. It is there, in the governance area,  that we can find the beginning of a solution to a crisis that, otherwise, will continue to get worse.

Bringing the bullies together

When I scrutinise the foreign policies of permanent members of the UN Security Council I find no real differences, when it comes to the pursuit of their national interests. Each one of the five States is ready and willing to make use of force and go beyond the diplomatic conventions, tread into illegality, when its leaders think that the country´s national interests are at play. That´s particularly true for each country´s area of influence and strategic importance. It´s the case with China in the South China Sea, with Russia in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, the US in Syria and Iran, the UK in West Africa and the Gulf Cooperation countries in the Persian shores, and with France in the Sahel Region of Africa.

The strategic options of these powerful countries take the primacy over the workings of the UN or other international organisations. It´s a fact, as well, that some of them do it more often than others. But when necessary, they will go for it. Norms and international law are to be respected as long as they do not collide with the views, ambitions and vital interests of the big five.

The primary role of the UN Secretary-General and other international voices, as well as the leaders of some key States such as India or Japan or South Africa, is to constantly recall the international norms and obligations. But it is also to look for points of equilibrium among the interests of the permanent members. Their critical geopolitical interests are known. The challenge is to negotiate taking them into account.

Trump´s most pressing international challenges

This week, President Trump has been directly trapped by Bashar al-Assad of Syria and Kim Jong-un of North Korea. Both dictators decided to challenge the incoherence that defines the global policy of the new US President. Assad with sarin, the gas that he dropped from his airplanes and killed scores of innocent people. A true war crime, by all measures. Kim by firing a new missile towards the Sea of Japan, just a few days prior to his powerful neighbour´s visit to Florida for a first meeting with the big man from Washington.

He is also being challenged by Vladimir Putin. This special, unique strongman created the most absurd “explanation” to excuse the war crime committed by his ally in Syria. And decided to continue to block any action the UN Security Council could have taken on this appalling crisis.

The US President cannot limit his response to these major challenges to words of condemnation and expressions of outrage. They are essential, indeed, but not enough at this stage. He came to the White House as man of action and determination. He has now to show his resolution. Actions ought to match the promises.

But he has very narrow options.

The first one is about prioritising. He has to focus on one of his challengers and show that man that Trump means business. And that priority as things stand now should be about Assad. It must combine diplomatic initiatives, including a serious push for an international commission of inquiry, with other political measures and direct military pressure. The package has to be multifaceted, clear in its purpose, well explained to everyone but also limited in its range, in its initial stage. 

Antonio Guterres

Antonio Guterres will be the next Secretary-General of the UN. He stood head and shoulders above all the other candidates. His qualities were so obvious that he could overcome the geopolitical pressure to have someone from Eastern Europe and also the advocacy campaign to have a woman as the new head of the UN. He has also been able to unify, at least on this matter, a much divided Security Council.

This is a difficult job. And the current international environment makes it even more complex. As I congratulate Guterres, I also trust he will have the wisdom the moment requires. 

UN is deeply divided

Syria has deeply fractured the UN Security Council. Today´s accusations of war crimes thrown at Russia are a very serious development. They will not be forgotten easily. The divisions will continue for a long time. That will have an impact on the work of the Council, including the selection of the new Secretary-General. It will be more difficult to reach an agreement, maybe for a very unreasonable motive: just for the sake of opposing the other side.

A divided Council is not good for the image of the UN. The organisation will be a key casualty. But more importantly, there will be no diplomatic solution to the crisis in Syria. 

The candidates and the Security Council

Tomorrow the UN Security Council will be voting for the first time this year on the matter of the next Secretary-general. This initial round is just to clean the list of candidates a bit. As a result, a few will get an indication that their candidature cannot fly. They will withdraw silently and the process would move on.

My reading is that the geopolitical considerations will matter considerably. The Council will certainly look at the Eastern European candidates with greater attention. And then, at the gender issue.

On the UN´s top race

The British would certainly veto any Argentinian candidate, if there was one for the post of the UN Secretary-General. The Falklands, the islands the Argentinians call Malvinas, would be the reason. That´s how these things are decided. 

Syria: the key Foreign ministers should remain closely engaged

One can have plenty of doubts about the realism and feasibility of the UN Security Council resolution on Syria, adopted yesterday. However, in view of the extreme complex situation the country is going through, a situation that has lasted now for too long, any move by the UN should be appreciated and encouraged. Particularly this one that has been discussed at the level of Foreign ministers. Actually, the continued personal involvement of the ministers will be required as we go into the implementation phase. That´s the best way to ensure that they see this process as being under their direct responsibility. The UN Special Envoy, Staffan de Mistura, can be the personification of the international community´s commitment to Syria. But he will need the unswerving support of the key ministers. That will be key for any progress to take place. 

International law and the fight against terrorism

When discussing terrorism, one should keep in mind a number of issues. One of them is the concept of self-defence. Basically the point is about the lawful use of force by States against an individual or groups of individuals that are recognised as representing, planning or preparing to carry out a serious armed threat. Linked to the concept are the notions of gravity, imminence, and pre-emptive action as well as the measured use of force.

The UN has spent quite a bit of its time looking at these matters. There are two Security Council Resolutions that provide most of the legal basis for the response by States to terrorism. One, UN Security Council Resolution 1368 (2001) was approved in the aftermath of the 9/11 acts. The other – UNSC Resolution 1373 (2004) – authorises States “to take steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts”.

As the discussion goes on and taking into consideration new developments, such as the drone strikes, it would be appropriate to review these resolutions and maybe adopt a more comprehensive one. The call for legal basis for action should be taken back to the UN Security Council. 

Somalia is out of the international radar

I was in contact today with a former UN colleague who is now serving in Somalia. And I became deeply worried, as we reviewed the situation in the country.

Al-Shabaab, the terrorist organization that operates in Somalia, remains a major threat. As the situation deteriorates once again, the soldiers from the AU expeditionary force are paying a very heavy toll. They are in Somalia, with a UN-supported mandated, to help in restoring peace but they are the target of repeated vicious attacks. Many African soldiers – recently the Burundians and the Ethiopians lost a good number of military personnel – have been killed. The UN staff, who are basically confined to their compound at the airport, are also in very serious danger.

There is no hope in the air once more.

Somalia is one of those forgotten conflicts that the international community keeps out of the radar. It is out of the news, because it is in many ways an unmanageable and unsolvable conflict. It is also less important for the world powers at present because the piracy issue has been successfully addressed. Therefore, the country is no longer a menace for the interests that matter and its unmeasurable drama can obviously be relegated to a darker corner at the end of the list of priorities. 

Two additional questions about the Middle East

After the agreement on Iran´s nuclear programme, there are two additional questions related to the Middle East that should receive the same amount of attention. They are both related to peace and security in the region. As such, they are vital for a geopolitical space that has known decades of conflict and remains the major focus of international instability.

One of those questions is about fighting violence. What can the UN Security Council and the countries of the region do to bring peace to Syria and Iraq as well as to Yemen? In different words, can we launch a regional conference on peace and security in the Middle East? This is a very central question. It has to be raised and we have to call on the international leaders to take up their responsibilities and dare to initiate such a process.

It cannot be just about peace in country A or B. In this very volatile part of the world we need to look at the future from a regional perspective. The country by country approach has a very limited impact.

The second question is about the Palestinian crisis. The Quartet is not producing any tangible results. The Palestinian issue is just not being properly addressed. We need to ask ourselves what can be done to change the trend and be in a position to initiate a true process that can lead to a durable solution. 

Here, I see a much greater role for the EU. The EU should take the lead. And it has a chance to do it, now that Tony Blair has moved out of the picture. It has also the moral responsibility, to compensate for all the years we have lost with Blair pretending to be around.