by Alice Pistolesi*
In times of more than unstable balances and widespread and expanding conflicts, it comes naturally to reflect on the role of the United Nations. About the functions they should have and those they actually exercise. We talked about this with Giovanni Camilleri, lecturer in the UN Agenda 2030 module of the Human Rights and Religions course at the Faculty of Insubria, who has been an official, for twenty-five years, in various specialized agencies of the United Nations, in particular the UNDP (United Nations Development Program).
Let’s start with the UN UNIFIL mission, which has shown all its limitations in these latter stages of the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. Why couldn’t the interposition mission do more during the Israeli army’s invasion of Lebanon?
The Unifil mission’s rules of engagement, do not provide for direct military intervention by the contingent. Their task lies in monitoring and assisting the civilian population. That is why they produce reports that highlight how the warring parties are doing, who is fulfilling agreements and who is not. The issue is upstream and goes back to the very creation of the United Nations in 1946 when it was decided not to endow this new multilateral body with an army as it is normally understood but rather to provide for contingents supplemented by soldiers from different countries with the function of observers and interposition, as the case may be, the expression precisely of specific rules of engagement that differ from mission to mission. In this sense, therefore, we cannot say that the mission does not work, but simply that it does what it is allowed to do.
From another point of view, then, one cannot imagine that a contingent of a few thousand soldiers can stop two armies that decide to go to war with each other. What they can do, however, is fundamental: be the presence of the international community on the ground to document and report to the political component of the United Nations what is really happening by providing verified and neutral information. That is why the weight of the mission does not lie in their military capacity but is a function of what the General Assembly, and therefore the countries that integrate it, and the Security Council decide based on the documentation produced by the mission.
And in the case of a military attack toward the mission, as has occurred in recent days against Unifil bases, what can the blue helmets do? How do you judge this act of the Israeli government?
This military attack, which has been condemned in Europe by all countries and on all political sides, shows how and how much the UN presence can be a strong obstacle and deterrent to belligerent forces intent on disregarding humanitarian law and international conventions. The Blue Helmets can do what they are doing and that is to maintain, and if anything, strengthen their presence. The military response as already mentioned depends on the rules of engagement and is possibly provided only to defend against an attack. The change in the rules of engagement must be voted on by the Security Council.
This act has few precedents in postwar history. A dismissive and violent decision that sees war and disregard for international law as the solution to conflicts and disputes between states. Exactly the opposite of the principles that gave birth to the United Nations. One more argument to strengthen and actualize the UN.
Is the lack of political will of states toward the UN also reflected in declining investment in peacekeeping missions?
The fixed annual fee that states allocate to the UN is for its operation. While funding to the UN for programs for sustainable development, prevention and peacekeeping, post-conflict rehabilitation, comes from “ad hoc” funds, allocated by so-called donor countries. The latter actually have been declining for years. In fact, when donor countries experience economic difficulties and need to cut spending they usually decide to cut first and foremost on funds allocated to development cooperation and international missions, partly because these are priorities less felt by their own citizenry.
Among the few funds that continue and are allocated, however, those related to specific war and non-war emergencies prevail. But this dynamic creates a contradiction because the phase in which we find ourselves, defined by many, as a ‘polycrisis’ (climate-environmental crisis, energy, that linked to massive population movements, widespread conflicts, social) would require availability of funds to work not only on the effects of specific crises but also on the causes that generate them.
Can it be said, however, that underlying all the thinking is the need to reform the structure of the United Nations itself? Are there, in your opinion, signs of willingness to do so?
Undoubtedly reform is necessary not to say imperative. Since 1946 the World has changed so much that it is obvious that the structure, logics, balances and strategies of this multilateral organization established after World War II must also be changed. Everyone is aware of this. And precisely one of the most important and most complex knots is precisely the reform of the Security Council which, let us not forget, has veto power over resolutions voted by the countries represented in the General Assembly . The immobility on reform is due to many factors. First of all, the difficulty of finding agreement among all states but also the frequent (and legitimate) changes of government due to elections in the various countries. I would add a doubt: is it certain that today the superpowers still willingly accept the existence of a supranational world government?
In addition to reform on the structure and mode of operation of the UN, it is also necessary to work on a common strategy of action. This is why Secretary General Antonio Guterres recently proposed centering action on six specific themes, so as to focus the effort undertaken to achieve the 17 Sustainable Development Goals proposed in the 2030 Agenda and not to disperse resources and energy.
To learn more, read our Israel/Palestine conflict factsheet
On the cover photo, the separation wall with Lebanon on town of Kfar Kila ©ramiz dallah/Shutterstock.com
* Alice Pistolesi is a Italian journalist with expertise in Africa and South America. She is on the editorial staff of the Atlante delle Guerre e dei Conflitti nel Mondo and contributes to numerous other newspapers like l’Espresso, The Guardian, El Pais and other
