Antonio Guterres . . . voice of conscience in our times
Guterres, since he took charge of the United Nations as its ninth Secretary General, has travelled to continents and countries around the world and made his views known about the ills which assail people in our times
In an unjust world, Antonio Guterres appears to be the sole moral voice in defence of people who suffer in every corner of the globe. His concern at the plight of the Rohingya refugees, powerfully articulated during a visit to the camps set up by the Bangladesh government a few years ago, testified to his humanitarian instincts.
Guterres, since he took charge of the United Nations as its ninth Secretary General, has travelled to continents and countries around the world and made his views known about the ills which assail people in our times. Having been prime minister of Portugal, Guterres was well aware of the shortcomings politics, both at the local and international levels, suffered from. He has clearly made it his mission to speak out on issues he feels need proper and judicious handling.
Guterres certainly knows that the job of a UN chief is a thankless one. The occupant of the office must tread a fine line between the often conflicting aims of all 193 members of the organisation. And yet, unlike so many of his predecessors, Guterres has never held back from speaking truth to those who would either deny it or shy away from it. It was in such a spirit that he spoke at the UN Security Council on the Gaza issue the other day.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
The UN Secretary General's voicing of the realities in Palestine swiftly drew the impertinence --- let us not call it ire --- of Israel's diplomats present in the chamber. The foreign minister of Tel Aviv's far right government, unable to stomach an articulation of facts, cancelled a meeting with him. Israel's ambassador to the UN, who has gone around in recent days disseminating propaganda aimed at justifying the atrocities committed by his government in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, demanded that Guterres resign.
The demand was an instance of audacity, fully in line with that being demonstrated by the Netanyahu government in its war against the unarmed people of Gaza. And, of course, Gilad Erdan, the ambassador, was emboldened in making his outrageous demand by the fact that Israel's western backers have stood firmly behind the actions of the Israeli military in pounding Palestinian homes to rubble and Palestinian people to dead meat.
No ceasefire, as of the writing of this article, has yet come into force because the world's powerful nations have made it clear, in so many ways, that Israel's assault will go on until Hamas is destroyed. They have not had time to consider the death and destruction that has been visited and is being visited upon the innocent. The one individual who has observed reality for what it is has been Antonio Guterres. Observe his no-holds-barred, statesman-like remarks at the UNSC, the same that caused the impertinence in Israeli diplomats:
'It is important to also recognise the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum. The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation.
But the grievances of the Palestinian people cannot justify the appalling attacks by Hamas. And those appalling attacks by Hamas cannot justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people.'
It was a statement cognisant of the realities in the Middle East today. The Israelis, never happy with any criticism of their government's policies and always arrogant in their approach to the crises which have periodically undermined efforts for peace in the region, do not see reason. Erdan has now made it known that his government will no more issue visas to UN officials desirous of visiting Israel.
That begs the question: if that is the level of Israeli indignation over Guterres' remarks, how does Israel expect to remain a member-state of the world body? Or do Israel's hubristic diplomats believe that their anger will cause a firestorm to come up around the Secretary General, probably supported by Tel Aviv's western friends, and make it hard for him to continue in office? The attitude is imbecilic in form, foolhardy in substance.
UN chiefs have often had a tough time navigating the turbid waters they have had to cross. In 1960, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, unhappy over UN peace operations in Congo, demanded that Secretary General Dag Hammarskjoeld resign and the office of UN chief be run by a troika comprising Soviet, western and neutral representatives. The demand backfired.
In 1996, Boutros-Boutros Ghali, the Egyptian diplomat elected UN Secretary General in 1991, made his intention known of seeking a second term in office. The Clinton administration, not happy with his performance, denied him the chance by exercising its veto in the Security Council.
UN Secretaries General have by and large been quiet, often pliant officials aware of the need to keep the five permanent members of the Security Council happy. Antonio Guterres has been an exception. He has demonstrated the power of conscience. In these parlous times, with thousands of people perishing in the onslaught of Israeli firepower in the Middle East and with the leaders of powerful nations unwilling to have Tel Aviv call a halt to the destruction, Antonio Guterres exudes hope. His comments need to be taken seriously in western capitals.
In an unhappy and unjust world, Antonio Guterres is its moral voice. It will be dangerous if individuals like Israel's diplomats get away with their pointless anger at his remarks.
Let there be no question that Antonio Guterres is the statesman the world is in need of today.
Syed Badrul Ahsan writes on politics and diplomacy
