Editor’s Note: Yewon came to us via the Republic of Korea and Columbia University and she proved herself to be quite an adept commentator on UN events, both in the High-Level Political Forum and in the Security Council. This is the last of the reflections from our summer 2024 cohort and I am particularly pleased to share it with our readers. I am continually impressed by the diverse and talented younger folks who literally fall into our lap. We are so very grateful to have shared with Yewon and the others this small portion of our common journey.
The Security Council (SC) Chamber is adorned with dark turquoise patterned wallpaper that stretches across the two sides of the room, and at the back of the room, behind the nearly perfect circular meeting table, hangs thick, lengthy curtains that flow gracefully from the ceiling to the floor. Between the curtains, a large mural is painted on the white marble wall. All of this creates a space that appears rich and sophisticated, with just a touch of frivolity. As a stranger to this room, the atmosphere seems at first, quiet, calm, undisturbed, almost subtly serene, and still. Yet, what is discussed in this space is often the opposite–intense, stifling, restrictive, cold, and at times, hostile. As I reflect back on my relatively brief time here at the United Nations (UN) this summer, including time at the High-Level Political Forum, there are several observations and personal reflections I want to share specifically concerning the Security Council.
The UN SC meetings occur most weekdays at 10am. For general debates, the meeting continues at 3pm until all states who wish to speak have spoken. As the meeting bell rings announcing the start of the meeting, state members finish taking their seats around the table. I open my laptop laid out in front of me and insert the interpretation earpiece on one of my lobes as the President calls the meeting to order. The President gives the floor to the briefers, and then each of the representatives takes turns deliver their speeches. Heated debates, amicable conversations, and pragmatic outcomes were some of the elements I expected from the meetings. However, it was, in fact, very political, formal, bureaucratic, and curiously unwelcoming and distant. This was especially so because state members would mostly read from pre-written scripts.
One of the meetings I attended which was truly intense, political, and even hostile was the discussion on the situation in the Middle East concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The bombardment of hospitals and schools, military raids, the number of dead women and children, food insecurity, health systems on the brink of collapse, all of these and more were repeatedly mentioned, representatives mostly condemning the acts that led to such devastations, and then calling for a ceasefire. Each of these meetings invited representatives from the State of Palestine and Israel. There were a few instances when the Ambassador from Palestine would point fingers at the Israel representative, passionately urging state members sitting in the room to uphold the UN Charter and international humanitarian law by acting instead of sitting around simply discussing what to do about this heinous war which has occurred ever since October 7th 2023 attacks by Hamas.
In response, the Israeli representative would use phrases like “child rapists” to describe the Palestinians and argue against the points the Palestinian Ambassador had previously stated. The atmosphere was hostile, intense, far from respectful and void of understanding, as might have been anticipated given that the two states have been at odds for decades. Their deep-seated hostility is historical, passionate, and complex, which is why such discussions were not easy. Indeed, it was obvious that there were no practical outcomes after these heated conversations. All that was addressed was what the situation in Gaza was like and the statistics that supported what each of the member states said throughout the meetings. The death of civilians continues to rise whilst these individuals sit in their suits and ties on the comfortable chairs in the Security Council chamber.
The hostile dynamic between Israel and Palestine was not the only one. Such political hostility was clear between the United States and Russia, mostly over Ukraine but over Gaza also. The Russia representative would put the US in the spotlight, accusing it of being perpetrators of the longstanding policies of the West that continuously excluded the interests of Russia and other non-Western countries. He painted the US as a serial violator of fundamental agreements and highlighted US reluctance in multilateral engagements. They mentioned widespread US corruption in one of the meetings, using the example of the Pentagon’s inspector general of the US army who did not report weapons violations, which he asserted was only the tip of the corruption iceberg. On the other hand, the US representative accused Russia of fabricating lies and constantly distorting narratives, mentioning that it is “… unfortunate we all had to sit here and listen to that…”. The members would further elaborate on their respective failure to uphold multilateralism and the UN Charter, highlighting that Russia is hypocritical as they utilize the SC as a platform to broadcast disinformation. As the US and Russian representatives delivered their statements, the other Ambassadors were often on their phones, a clear sign of their political dissatisfaction with each other.
As part of an often-small audience listening to their statements, I was often shocked and bewildered at the irony of the meetings. The UN was founded on the values of multilateralism and cooperation, peace and security, integrity and accountability, and so on. Few of the meetings represented these values. Instead, they displayed the opposite, pushing for more of a political agenda instead of a peaceful and dignified one. I wanted to have a conversation with each of these representatives and learn more about their personal stances, instead of what their statements represented. What were their names – instead of “the representative of the Republic of Korea”? Do they truly care about the issues they talk about every day, or do they only pretend to care? Are they likewise frustrated about these meetings which are often long on statements and short on progress? I had no way of knowing. After each of these sessions such as the conversation on the situation in the Middle East, I would leave the chamber disappointed and discouraged. I realized the most I could do is write about my observations and experiences during my time here at the UN.
Despite all this, my time at the UN was a profitable one for an evolving student such as myself, not yet sufficiently exposed to present real-time ongoing global issues and conflict. If learning about the world and the issues our society faces is a priority, sitting inside the walls of a classroom is one way to go, but the opportunity to watch and listen in on Council members was quite another. I learned more about the world, exponentially more in fact, outside of the classroom in these meetings. It was a great space for me to hear first-hand about the current situations in states that are struggling with international peace and security. It was much more tangible and concrete than reading about it from literature, news articles, or textbooks, as important as they can be. I realized the significance of being present in an environment that existed for the purpose of making the world a better place. If there is one difference between myself at the beginning of my internship and now, it is that I am much more educated, informed, and interested in global politics, international relations, and issues relating to peace and security. The frustrations were not simply frustrations but also a catalyst, sparking my passion to change the world, directing my attention to pursuing a career in organizations that actively tackle global issues, specifically in areas that are directly impacted by war, because I believe it is a scourge that needs to be addressed right now. As is often noted in the Council chamber, the fate of so many of the world’s peoples, especially women and children (who often have little or no say in resolving the violence) continue to hang by a perilous thread.
Clearly, in order to tackle global conflict, the UN must fix the problems that lie within the institution, and this includes the Security Council. States must step up to the task and rub the dust off their eyes which conceals the reality of these meetings. Such meetings are too often impractical, redundant, ineffective, and unproductive. How can the SC members encourage multilateralism and cooperation when they fail to maintain an amicable relationship between themselves? Of course, there are several Council members which maintain good terms with others. Yet, I am left to wonder how many of these are actually grounded in politics, not sincerity, which is a realistic concern seeing that the UN is a fundamentally political organization. However, this too must evolve. Despite apparent differences, states must find it within themselves to eagerly come together each morning to the SC, full of compassion, integrity, and the willingness to listen actively to contrasting views. Members must better cooperate through lively, results-oriented conversations, instead of reading from their politicized pre-written scripts. .
gapwblog 