Israel Should Influence Next UN Secretary-General Selection
Translated & summarized from Arutz Sheva by baba
Israel can and should influence the selection of the next UN Secretary-General, according to Dr. Adi Schwartz of the Misgav Institute. He argues that the UN's anti-Israel bias causes significant damage, necessitating Israeli engagement. Schwartz proposes a joint US-Israel initiative to question candidates on their stance against bias and specific UN mechanisms. He believes proactive engagement, leveraging international partnerships, is crucial to mitigate harm and challenge the UN's anti-Israel agenda.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Dr. Adi Schwartz believes Israel must influence the UN Secretary-General selection due to significant damage from UN bias.
- He proposes Israel and the US create a questionnaire for candidates regarding anti-Israel bias.
- Schwartz advocates for demanding candidates address UNRWA, human rights law, and special Palestinian mechanisms.
- The goal is for the Secretary-General to treat Israel like any other nation, not necessarily be pro-Israel.
- Israel should proactively engage, leveraging allies and US leverage to prevent unsuitable appointments.
As UN Secretary-General António Guterres's term concludes, discussions are underway to select his successor. Dr. Adi Schwartz, a senior researcher at the Misgav Institute for National Security, argues that Israel can and should exert influence on this decision, citing the significant damage Israel has sustained from the UN's mechanisms, particularly post-October 7th. He notes that this damage extends beyond rhetoric to include investigative committees, sanctions, and embargoes.
Schwartz emphasizes that while the UN is often perceived as a legitimate and neutral body, Israel must engage in the process to undermine its legitimacy and mitigate the harm it causes. He acknowledges that Israel cannot fundamentally alter the UN's structure but stresses the Secretary-General's significant procedural influence in setting agendas, making appointments, deciding on budgets, and determining priorities.
He draws parallels to former Secretaries-General like Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon, suggesting that public acknowledgment of anti-Israel bias by a Secretary-General would damage the credibility of UN bodies. Schwartz frames this as a long-term struggle, similar to the Palestinians' successful use of information warfare, and proposes that Israel collaborate with the United States to develop a questionnaire for candidates. This questionnaire would probe their stances on anti-Israel bias, their willingness to close UNRWA, support the repeal of Article 7 of human rights law (which mandates UN Human Rights Council discussion of Palestinian rights), and their plans for closing special Palestinian mechanisms.
Furthermore, Schwartz suggests demanding a yearly report from the next Secretary-General detailing actions taken to curb anti-Israel bias and a commitment to not collaborate with terror supporters. He clarifies that the goal is not to demand a pro-Israel Secretary-General, but one who treats Israel like any other nation. He urges Israel to be proactive, leveraging its friendships, including the US's leverage due to withheld funding, and its allies with veto power in the Security Council to prevent unsuitable appointments. He believes Israel can achieve results through truth, even if it takes time to erode the UN's anti-Israel stance.