Not so long ago, in the final decades of the 20th century, the United Nations was the arbiter of international law, and its secretary-general was almost a full‑time peacemaker. Today, negotiations to resolve wars and conflicts fall to businesspeople friendly with U.S. President Donald Trump or to third-party countries, often emerging powers (Qatar as mediator in Gaza, or Pakistan in the war against Iran), which have co-opted the organization’s historic role as interlocutor. On the eve of electing its next secretary-general, the U.N.’s peacemaking dimension takes on particular significance after the organization’s paralysis in recent conflicts: Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, Iran, Lebanon…
Historian Thant Myint-U, a former U.N. official and mediator in the Myanmar peace process, recently asked on social media: “Where is the secretary-general of the United Nations in today’s [Iran] war? An impartial mediator, appointed by the entire world, who’s on good terms with all the big powers (and can easily be scapegoated if things go wrong) is precisely what’s needed to find face-saving pathways to deescalation for all sides. This is what U.N. secretaries-general did — often with remarkable success — for decades, especially between 1955-1990.”
One of those peacemakers was his grandfather, the Burmese diplomat U Thant, who was U.N. secretary-general between 1961 and 1971 and helped resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, with a peace plan accepted by both U.S. president John F. Kennedy and Russian president Nikita Khrushchev.
The historian notes that Pakistan is currently doing the work of past U.N. secretaries-general with regard to Iran. “But every now and then, including in cases of potential nuclear escalation, someone called the secretary-general of the United Nations may be indispensable in crafting an exit. Everything else the U.N. did should be theatre that ensures that the prestige of this actor was retained, for when the world needed the person most,” he wrote, as criticism mounts regarding the organization’s apparent irrelevance.
The Security Council’s paralysis and the U.N.’s mounting failures now amount to what looks very much like a reputational — even legitimacy — problem. The organization’s paralysis — for some, outright ineffectiveness — has taken deepest root in the Middle East, where Israel repeatedly disregards Security Council resolutions.
Today, peacemaking in the region seems to have been privatized, as demonstrated by Trump’s so-called Gaza Board of Peace: a corporation where diverse interests intersect, many of them economic, such as those of the U.S. president’s chief negotiators, his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his friend, the businessman Steve Witkoff, special envoy for peacekeeping missions (the official title of his position), both of whom have multimillion-dollar investments in the countries with which they are negotiating.
Then there is lobbyist Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, whom many still criticize for his support of the Iraq War in 2003. In his role as an executive member of the Board of Peace — for many, a parallel U.N. that overlaps with its functions — Blair has urged the organization to back Trump’s plan for the Gaza Strip: “Gaza is the test for all of us.”
Rafael Grossi, Michelle Bachelet, Rebeca Grynspan and Macky Sall.EFE/AP
The four candidates for secretary-general (Michelle Bachelet, Rebeca Grynspan, Rafael Grossi, and Macky Sall) were recently examined before the 193 members of the General Assembly and representatives of civil society. One of the eight sections of the agenda was precisely “peacekeeping and peacebuilding,” because without fulfilling this function, it is difficult to preserve the organization’s core purpose.
“The U.N. has lost a great deal of credibility as a peace institution at a time when wars are on the rise and the Security Council is regularly deadlocked on how to react to major conflicts,” Richard Gowan, director of the Global Affairs and Institutions Program at the International Crisis Group, recently explained to this newspaper. “The secretary-general cannot achieve world peace alone. But a savvy secretary-general could play a more significant role in secondary diplomacy with Beijing, Moscow, and Washington on how to manage future conflicts. [Current Secretary-General António] Guterres has often seemed rather fatalistic about his inability to play a significant role in managing major wars. Diplomats want his successor to take more risks.”
“Lords of peace”
The Trump model seems to indicate that, just as there are infamous warlords, there appear to be mercenary “lords of peace,” starting with Kushner and Witkoff. But the U.N.’s capacity will not be complete if its largest contributor — the U.S. — does not settle its debts (more than $1.5 billion) to ensure the proper functioning of the organization and its costly peacekeeping missions.
“With timely funding, the new secretary-general should emphasize the organization’s traditional role in working for peace and security. A good first objective would be eastern Congo; another, working toward a peaceful Syria amid its internal discord,” explains George A. Lopez, professor emeritus of peace studies at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. “In each case, it would be useful to have a secretary-general who, in the interest of budgetary constraints and a pragmatic vision, works with the World Bank and other international financial institutions to inject real resources of money and expertise that can further incentivize peace options as a smart choice.”
“Despite the fact that some members of the Security Council are eager to put the secretary-general in a straitjacket, that leader must be a moral voice for the values of the Charter, for peace in the face of unprecedented violence, and a defender of international law and especially international humanitarian law, even when nations that have respected those traditions may now be flouting them,” concludes Lopez.
The candidacy of Grynspan, the former vice president of Costa Rica, is boosted by her significant role as a negotiator of the 2022 Black Sea trade agreement, which allowed for the release of grain blocked in Ukrainian ports by the Russian invasion. At the time, Grynspan was serving as secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), an organization from which she has temporarily stepped down to focus on her candidacy.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres speaking in Beirut on March 14.Mohamed Azakir (REUTERS)
When asked about this key role, the candidates for secretary-general have not gone into detail or put forward concrete proposals, because their hypothetical success depends on securing the approval of the General Assembly without antagonizing any of the five permanent members of the Security Council (where Grynspan seems well-positioned, given her work in 2022). Bachelet has proposed politically oriented and context-specific peacekeeping operations, rather than heavily militarized models, with an emphasis on gender perspective and regional alliances. Grynspan promises a new vision for peacekeeping operations, with simplified mandates tailored to each specific case.
Grossi, under fire for calling the potential election of the first woman to head the United Nations “symbolic,” has barely addressed the issue of peacekeeping and has called for renewed dialogue on funding. The Senegalese candidate, Macky Sall, has little chance, as he lacks the support of the African Union, a key regional player with a growing role in peacekeeping missions.
Barring any dark horses — the application period is still theoretically open — at the end of the selection process in the fall, the five permanent members of the Security Council (Great Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States) will largely determine the election of the next U.N. chief for a five-year term, beginning in 2027. This council, paralyzed by the veto power of its five permanent members, is the same one before which U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz recently requested U.N. assistance in resolving a problem caused precisely by Washington: the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
“The United Nations was built for times like this,” said Waltz, without a hint of embarrassment, while Trump remains intent on dismantling the organization.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition