We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Greenfield-Thomas addresses a meeting of the Security Council as they consider a US-sponsored resolution calling for a cease-fire in Gaza, on March 22, 2024.
China and Russia veto US cease-fire resolution for Gaza
Yet another Gaza cease-fire resolution failed in the UN Security Council today – though the US was not responsible for blocking it this time. China and Russia vetoed a US-sponsored resolution urging for “an immediate and sustained cease-fire” in the Israel-Hamas war in connection with a hostage deal.
Beijing and Moscow’s ambassadors seemingly took issue with the language of the resolution, contending it didn’t go far enough to demand a cease-fire. The US resolution “sets up conditions for a ceasefire, which is no different from giving a green light to continued killings, which is unacceptable,” said Zhang Jun, China’s ambassador to the UN.
Russia's ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, said Moscow supported a cease-fire but decried the US resolution as a “hypocritical spectacle.” Nebenzia said it was “exceedingly politicized … to help to play to the voters, to throw them a bone in the form of some kind of a mention of a cease-fire in Gaza.”
The US, Israel’s top ally, previously vetoed three cease-fire resolutions. The latest resolution signaled a shift in Washington’s stance on the war, as the Biden administration faces domestic pressure over its support for Israel and butts heads with Benjamin Netanyahu’s government over plans to invade Rafah – a city filled with displaced Palestinians.
Playing politics? The US accused Russia and China, two of its top adversaries, of tanking the resolution for political reasons. "Russia and China simply did not want to vote for a resolution that was penned by the United States,” said US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield.
What’s next? Elected members of the UNSC have penned an alternative resolution that demands an immediate cease-fire, which could be brought to a vote on Friday afternoon. The US has signaled it will block the measure.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Antony Blinken traveled to Israel on Friday as part of ongoing efforts to secure a new truce. Netanyahu remained defiant during the visit, telling Blinken that Israel can't defeat Hamas without going into Rafah and that it will move forward with the operation without US support if necessary.
No place worse for women than Taliban's Afghanistan, says UN human rights chief
When the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan in August 2021, there was some hope that they would reformed. Now it's clear they have not changed a bit.
And nowhere is that more obvious than in the Taliban's abominable treatment of women.
“There is no country in the world that treats women in the way that Afghanistan does and the Taliban do,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World, on the ground in Davos.
So, what can we do about it? Türk calls for "a unified stance that this is not part of the international order."
Watch the GZERO World episode: Russia's tragic brutality and the humbling of the West
The UN turns 75 — is it still relevant?
This Friday marks 75 years since the signing of the United Nations charter, a document that established the biggest and longest-lived experiment in global political cooperation in modern history.
But the organization celebrates this milestone at a time of uncertainty about whether it is still fit for purpose in the 21st century — and not only because of the critical global challenge of the coronavirus pandemic.
First, the good news. The UN has much to be proud of. Its programs help hundreds of millions of people to ward off hunger, poverty, and violence. It's the leading platform for the fight against climate change and its refugee agencies care for almost 60 million of the most vulnerable people around the world. UN observers help to ensure free and fair elections, and its peacekeepers intervene where few countries would do so alone. And without the Non-Proliferation Treaty, many more countries today would have deadly nuclear weapons.
But on the other hand, it's hard to think of a major international crisis that the UN Security Council — the UN's most powerful body — has resolved since the 1991 Gulf War. The Council is too often a stage for rivals like the US, Russia and China to simply veto each other's initiatives. It was unable to prevent genocides in Rwanda, Darfur and more recently Myanmar, and powerless to restrain the 2003 US invasion of Iraq or Russia's annexation of Crimea a decade later. It did almost nothing on Syria.
So here are three big questions that the UN will need to resolve in the coming years.
First, does power at the UN reflect today's world? In some ways, the organization is still stuck in 1945: France and the UK remain permanent members of the Security Council, which has only one permanent member from Asia (China), and none from Africa the Middle East or Latin America.
Second, who's going to pay for the UN? The UN's regular budget is covered by mandatory contributions from all member states, but most UN agencies rely on voluntary contributions. This discretionary funding was already at high risk, and it's likely to decline even more as coronavirus clobbers national budgets. UN agencies will have to find the money elsewhere.
Third, will COVID-19 help or hurt the UN? On the one hand, a global public health crisis underscores the importance of precisely the kind of international cooperation that the UN is meant to foster. And as the pandemic deepens throughout the developing world, the UN will play a big role in managing the twin public health and economic impacts there.
However, the coronavirus is also heightening major countries' inclination to turn inward. The US, in a deepening rivalry with China, has already cut funding for the World Health Organization — a UN agency — over complaints that it's too cozy with Beijing. Will the pandemic and its aftermath empower political forces that favor cooperation or nationalism?
Happy Birthday, but… Three-quarters of a century on from its founding, the United Nations is at a potentially major turning point. As they blow out those 75 candles, what should the UN wish for?