Diplomacy, restraint and respect, Israel’s need of the hour

A simple, matter-of-fact statement issued by United Nations Secretary-General (UNSG) Antonio Guterres on October 1, caused an unprecedented diplomatic storm. “I condemn the broadening of the Middle East conflict, with escalation after escalation. This must stop. We absolutely need a ceasefire,” the Secretary-General said in his statement.

Another statement, issued on the same day on Lebanon by the Secretary-General’s spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric, reflected a similar concern. The statement read, “The Secretary-General is extremely concerned with the escalation of the conflict in Lebanon. He appeals for an immediate ceasefire. An all-out war must be avoided in Lebanon at all costs.”

Though Guterres’ statement did not mention any country per se, use of the jargon “escalation after escalation” and “broadening of the Middle East conflict” touched a raw nerve causing alarm in Israel, and drew a swift reaction from its combative Foreign Minister Israel Katz. The Foreign Minister overstepped the limits of his office to declare the UN Secretary-General as persona non grata. The term is normally used to expel a diplomat whenever his/her presence in the country of his/her posting becomes ‘undesirable’. To equate as such the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of which Israel has been a ‘difficult’ member since the beginning, is beyond all canons of law of international organisation and the corpus of immunities and privileges of the diplomatic personnel. More importantly, the ‘declaration’ by Katz about the UN Secretary-General does not apply to international organisations.

The UN and its staff are governed by a special Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. Called the “General Convention”, it was negotiated and adopted immediately after establishment of the UN. As provided for in Article 105 of the UN Charter, the Convention was adopted by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) at its first session on February 13, 1946, (Resolution 22 A (I)), and it entered into force on September 17, 1946. The General Convention specifies the notion of “functional” personality and immunity of the UN. It contains detailed provisions on the privileges and immunities enjoyed by UN officials.

The overboard Israeli reaction was unwarranted. It is a classic example of ‘shooting the messenger’ who has often been troubled by the habitual and wilful defiance of international law in the Middle East by various state actors (Israel, Iran, etc.) and non-state actors (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi, etc.). The UN Secretary-General has sought to act within the remit of mandate of his office.

However, the tone, tenor and phraseology of the Israeli minister’s declaration was not unexpected, especially in the aftermath of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s defiant address to the UN General Assembly on September 27. In diplomatic parlance, any such statement prohibiting entry of the UN Secretary-General is tantamount to coercive action against the Chief Administrative Officer (Article 97) of the 193-member political organisation of sovereign states.

This kind of outburst, however, is not new in the UN history. Several other member countries, some overtly and others covertly, have sought to dissuade the Secretary-General from visiting their country. Yet, the sheer weight of the office of the UN Secretary-General is beyond insults. All Secretary-Generals, who take their task seriously, had to face this professional hazard from ill-tempered heads of government or their representatives. The UN history is replete with such stories.

To control the damage, after a discussion on the Middle East situation on October 3, the 15-member UN Security Council issued a joint statement that indirectly chided Israel. Expressing its full support to the Secretary-General, the Council said, “Any decision not to engage with the UN Secretary-General or the United Nations is counterproductive, especially in the context of escalating tensions in the Middle East.”

The founders of the UN Charter envisaged the role of the ‘secretariat’ (Chapter XV; Articles 97-101) as a fulcrum around which the entire edifice of the organisation would revolve. During his seven years as the head of the Secretariat, Guterres has been a trailblazer and sought to walk-the-talk as liaison officer for all principal organs of the UN. Invoking a series of instrumentalities of annual reports, special reports, periodic updates, briefings, statements and as the most visible face of the UN, the Secretary-General (along with his team) has been fire-fighting all the time on literally any issue ‘under the sun’.

The regular updates provided personally by the Secretary-General to the Council have become a stuff of legends. When Antonio Guterres walks into the hallowed chamber of the Security Council (or for that matter, the General Assembly), he brings along his lifetime experience as a statesman, including as the Prime Minister of Portugal, with him. The crisp statements, laden with facts, figures and relevant data as well as authentic updates from the ground speak for themselves. We have not seen in recent decades a Secretary-General speaking with such authenticity, sincerity and candour.

Guterres, especially during his second term, has shown that where is a will there is a way. He has drawn power, whenever required, as mentioned in the Charter. Invoking his ‘implied powers’, Guterres took an unprecedented step on December 6, 2023, by sending a letter to the President of the UN Security Council. This letter invoked Article 99 (Chapter XV) of the Charter. This rarely used provision can be construed as a repository of an extraordinary power conferred upon the Secretary-General since he can “bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security”. The Secretary-General’s 2023 letter was propelled by the “appalling human suffering, physical destruction and collective trauma across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

All UN member countries need to exercise restraint and sobriety in consonance with highest standards of diplomatic etiquettes so as not to shoot the messenger but to pay heed to his words of wisdom and empathy that underscore that there is no substitute for peace.