“The Security Council has been extremely divided since the intervention in Libya in 2011” – L’Express

More than a dozen countries – including the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan – have suspended aid to the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), whose employees have been fired for their alleged involvement in the October 7 attack by Hamas. This episode plunges the UN into turmoil, even though it had already been widely criticized since the start of the war in Gaza between the terrorist organization and Israel.

In this interview, Alexandra Novosseloff, associate researcher at the Thucydide Center at the University of Paris-II-Panthéon-Assas, recalls that the dysfunctions accused of the organization reflect a Security Council “extremely divided since the intervention in Libya 2011. And that “whatever the situation to be managed, neither the Secretary General nor the Security Council have a magic wand”, to “maintain international peace and security”, as stipulated in the first article of its charter.

How could around ten employees of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees potentially participate in the massacre of October 7?

Alexandra Novosseloff I am not a specialist in UNRWA, but like any United Nations agency, to carry out its actions in a territory, it relies on a small minority of international staff and a large majority of locals. The staff of an agency is also a reflection of the society around it. That said, it is unfair to stop funding an entire agency (27,000 people helping 6 million Palestinian refugees) for a few bad apples within it.

The UN has been under fire from criticism since the start of the war…

In every crisis, the UN is criticized, it is almost systematic. It is so as not to do what is not in its power in any case: prevent a war, terrorist actions, or even put a State back on its feet. The UN is an intergovernmental organization, a collective, with a secretary general who has no more divisions than the pope… The decisions taken are the fruit of discussions between States. However, we have had an extremely divided Security Council since the intervention in Libya in 2011. The Council has even fallen into a sort of chronic division. However, this does not prevent it from working. It meets almost every day and manages to make around fifty resolutions per year. While it was not a foregone conclusion, he took two shots on the situation in Gaza last December.

What changed with the intervention in Libya?

The Security Council has been criticized for having authorized armed intervention by the United States, the United Kingdom and France to prevent the massacres in Benghazi, an action which would have led to regime change. This resolution was adopted by ten votes and five abstentions, just above the threshold of nine votes needed. Some states, such as Russia (which abstained in the vote), then considered that this intervention had gone too far. At the same time, an armed intervention necessarily has unplanned consequences… Since then, Putin’s Russia has stiffened. She notably supported the Syria of Bashar al-Assad, her ally, and participated in the most horrible abuses of his regime, vetoing any resolution condemning these actions.

The Security Council is often criticized for its inaction…

For there to be action under the aegis of the UN, there must be a willingness to act from its member states, to get involved politically and/or militarily. This was the case against Saddam Hussein, who had virtually the whole world against him after invading Kuwait. Today, there is no desire to act against Russia in Ukraine, or against Israel in Gaza. Nobody wants to add war to war.

Even if a veto blocks the adoption of a resolution, diplomacy continues and certain members of the Council restart the work by proposing a new project, as was the case after the American veto on the resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The UN is a policy of small steps. We too often make the mistake of looking at the UN’s results over a year or two, when we should see it over ten years. National political time is not that of the United Nations, which generates a lot of frustration and incomprehension.

The United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) (47 elected members) is subject to the influence of authoritarian countries like China, with a catastrophic humanitarian record…

There is criticism of the fact that countries can be elected and sit there, despite a very imperfect record in terms of respect for human rights. But their appointment is not linked to this, but to their status as a member state of the UN. This is the game of multilateralism. If we started to set criteria, we wouldn’t succeed.

But a seat on the HRC, if it does not make one virtuous, does cause a certain pressure to be exerted; its members pay more attention to human rights than if they did not sit there. Reports denouncing violations continue to be published. The High Commissioner for Human Rights, like the Secretary General of the UN, has a certain independence. Both can be critical of the countries that sit on the Human Rights Council.

What can the Secretary General (SG) of the UN, the Portuguese Antonio Guterresin the crisis in Gaza?

Not much, because he doesn’t have a weapon arm. Its primary role is to be impartial, to see where each side is wrong in order to chart a middle path that can lead to solutions likely to be accepted. In this very polarized world, it has become complicated to be a mediator, because it means telling a truth that is not good for both parties to hear. But its room for maneuver is limited. The nickname of SG in English is “scapegoat”, which means scapegoat. As Guterres has said several times, he has the most difficult job on Earth…

In the 1990s, we had the impression that the UN intervened more in crises…

It was a sort of enchanted parenthesis, the perfect state desired by the drafters of the Charter in 1945. All the permanent members of the Security Council were united, the condition for it to function well – conversely, it works hurts when its members are divided. There was then leadership from the Americans, while the other great powers (Russia, China) were taken by their internal priorities, and followed. But it wasn’t perfect either. Secretary General Boutros-Ghali, when he opposed the United States for a report to be published on an Israeli bombing in Qana in South Lebanon, was unable to obtain a second term.

But whatever the situation to be managed, neither the Secretary General nor the Security Council have a magic wand to put States back on their feet, enforce the rule of law or stop massive violations of human rights. The UN is a universal organization where strategic interests are very different, and not a regional organization where they converge. But multilateralism has its usefulness and the United Nations charter gives the Security Council the power to legalize armed intervention.

What are the possibilities for reforming the functioning of the UN?

In France, we think above all of that of the Security Council. I’m not sure it’s desirable and even less possible. It is not because you will have a more representative Security Council that its decision-making process will be more effective, on the contrary. For around twenty years, the debate on Council reform has exacerbated tensions between contenders for a permanent member seat within the regions. Argentina is against Brazil’s candidacy, Pakistan against India’s, etc. Why would Nigeria be more legitimate than Kenya or South Africa? Italy opposes Germany’s candidacy. States could apply individually, but they would then dissociate themselves from their continent.

Such a reform would require a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly and the positive votes of members of the Security Council, before ratification by all national parliaments as stipulated in article 108 of the charter.

What is possible to reform outside the Security Council?

The UN is constantly reforming. Each SG comes with a lot of reforms. Guterres has, for example, set up a system of resident coordinators, i.e. ambassadors in countries where different UN agencies work and where the aim is to better coordinate their action.

Next September, the Future Summit could, among other things, lead to strengthening the role of the Peacebuilding Commission, created in 2005. In the document “Our Common Agenda”, the Secretary General made proposals in 2021 which range from environmental protection to the establishment of a new social contract, including security issues, new technologies, etc. UN action covers the entire spectrum of our daily lives. We must differentiate between the political UN, like the Security Council, and the rest of the organization, that of the agencies that work to reduce inequalities in the world.