Artículo Foreign Policy, 31.10.2023 Alex Tarquinio, periodista que cubre la ONU desde Nueva York
As on Ukraine and other critical issues, the multilateral body is trapped in political theater.
As the Israel-Hamas war rages on more than three weeks after it began, diplomats at the United Nations appear more focused on seizing the political narrative than on having any impact on the ground. In the General Assembly, resolutions are fraught, and then fought; the Security Council’s hands are often tied by vetoes.
“The U.N. is the world’s premier political theater,” said Richard Gowan, the International Crisis Group’s U.N. director. “In situations such as Russia’s war on Ukraine and the current war in Gaza, where the major powers cannot see a way to agreement, the U.N. is basically a stage for speechifying and posturing.”
The U.N. General Assembly votes regarding Russia’s war in Ukraine, by comparison, have been pretty straightforward. In February this year, much of the world backed Ukraine, several big countries abstained, and a handful sided with Russia. This time, things are more complicated. Some NATO countries and other allies supported a resolution that Israel (and the United States) staunchly opposed; other important allies and partners such as India, Italy, and Ukraine abstained.
But the headlines don’t begin to capture the nuance of the diplomatic maneuvers in New York. Gowan described the original draft resolution, which was proposed by Jordan on behalf of the group of Arab countries at the U.N., as a “hand grenade of a resolution.” While calling for a cease-fire in Gaza, the draft made no mention of the attack on Oct. 7, when Hamas abducted more than 200 Israelis and foreign nationals from Israel and killed 1,400. Many of the mutilated corpses are still being identified because they were burned or beheaded.
Canada proposed an amendment last week that would have included language condemning “the terrorist attacks by Hamas” and “the taking of hostages,” while demanding the “safety, well-being, and humane treatment of the hostages,” but that proposal received 88 votes in favor to 55 against, with 23 abstentions, and so didn’t reach the two-thirds bar needed for passage in the General Assembly on matters of security. But the Arab Group had added language to its draft condemning “acts of terrorism and indiscriminate attacks,” without mentioning Hamas by name. The final version also expanded on the original language about an immediate cease-fire with a call for an “immediate, durable, and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities.”
Those edits may have helped push the resolution over the two-thirds bar (not counting abstentions) to secure passage. The initial count was 120 votes in favor, although that was later revised upward after Iraq complained about a technical difficulty and changed its vote to “yes” from an abstention. The final tally was 121 in favor, 14 against, and 44 abstentions.
The edits to the original draft might also have succeeded in widening the divide among some of Israel’s traditional supporters. After voting overwhelmingly for Canada’s amendment, they landed all over the map on the final resolution. Belgium, France, and Spain voted in favor; Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom abstained; Austria, Czechia, and the United States voted against. This follows almost two years of solid coordination supporting Ukraine in the General Assembly, where 141 countries voted in February to condemn Russia’s invasion. Only seven countries, including Russia itself, were on the opposing side then. In some notable respects, the picture on Friday was a photo negative. For example, China, Cuba, and Iran abstained in the February vote demanding that Russia withdraw its military forces from Ukraine, but voted on Friday in favor of a truce in Gaza. On the other hand, Australia, Japan, and South Korea voted in favor of the resolution condemning Russia in February, and abstained on Friday.
Even in periods of relative calm, resolutions supporting Palestine are typically warmly received in the General Assembly, where dozens of countries do not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. Diplomats from a few of those countries applauded after remarks by Iran’s foreign minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, who essentially threatened to expand the war beyond the region. The assembly roundly applauded the remarks by Riyad Mansour, the U.N. permanent observer for Palestine, which gained non-member observer status during his term. He told the General Assembly before the vote that Palestinians were suffering, “not by an act of God, but by the acts of a government represented here in this chamber.”
By contrast, Israel’s U.N. ambassador, Gilad Erdan, who said that “no horror movie compares to the pure brutality that Hamas carried out,” was greeted with cold silence. “The drafters of the resolution claim to be concerned about peace. Yet the depraved murderers who initiated this war are not even mentioned,” he said. The Israeli ambassador had stirred up some controversy earlier in the week by calling for the resignation of U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres after the U.N. leader said that the Hamas attack had not happened in a vacuum.
The heated rhetoric in the General Assembly was the capstone of a chaotic period in the U.N. Security Council, where deep divisions have prevented the council from passing a humanitarian resolution for Gaza. Two drafts by Russia fell short of the nine votes needed amid complaints by some council members that they had not been involved in the drafting. Versions presented by Brazil and the United States both had sufficient support to pass but were vetoed. The U.S. vetoed the Brazil draft, while Russia and China vetoed the U.S. draft.
The General Assembly, which can only pass nonbinding resolutions, typically only acts once the Security Council has exhausted its options. It did so, for example, after it became obvious that Russia would veto any Security Council resolution condemning its war in Ukraine. But that is not yet the case here. The 10 elected Security Council members are now preparing a new version of the humanitarian resolution, which they hope will include enough compromise language to avoid a veto by any of the five permanent members. Malta’s U.N. ambassador, Vanessa Frazier, one of the elected council members, said that they remain firm in the belief that they must “urgently and genuinely address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”
But even that might have relatively little practical import in Gaza. There’s a long history of the U.N. calling for cease-fires that have at best led to brief reductions in hostilities—for example, in Bosnia or Syria, not to mention the many U.N. resolutions addressing the Palestinian question, which dates back to almost the very founding of the United Nations.
In the long run, the potential realignment of voting blocs might be of greater import to global peace and security.
After nearly two years of relatively good coordination on resolutions condemning Russia’s war in Ukraine, Russia may arguably be the biggest beneficiary of the recent political maneuvers. The war between Israel and Hamas has diverted media attention from its war in Ukraine, where Russia has recently opened up a bloody new front in Avdiivka, in eastern Ukraine. In Washington, the new Republican speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has already called to “bifurcate” the funding for Israel and Ukraine, which U.S. President Joe Biden sought to tie together in a recent Oval Office address. Support for Ukraine has become divisive in some corners of the Republican Party.
At the U.N. headquarters in New York, there is also less time and attention for Russia. A press briefing by the U.N.’s special rapporteur for human rights in Russia had to be rescheduled last week, and only a few journalists eventually showed up. Meanwhile, also last week, the Kremlin, which is trying to insert itself as a mediator in the Middle East conflict, welcomed envoys from Iran and Hamas.
