Critics who expect Guterres to unambiguously condemn Russia or support one side are overlooking the necessity of dialogue in conflict resolution.
The recent criticism directed at UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres for attending the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, underscores a fundamental misunderstanding of his role and the complexities of international diplomacy. Critics have accused him of tacitly endorsing Vladimir Putin’s aggression against Ukraine by engaging with him.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has declined a visit from Guterres as a response to his trip to Russia. A source from the presidential office told the BBC that Zelensky found it inappropriate to host Guterres after he met with the “war’s instigator” and spent UN Day in an “aggressor country”.
Serhii Kyslytsia, Ukraine’s Permanent Representative to the UN, posted in his X (twitter) the references to guidelines approved by former UN chief Ban Ki-moon that caution against meetings with individuals under International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrants, like Putin, as they may seek to undermine the Court’s authority.
Kyslytsia emphasized that the Relationship Agreement between the UN and ICC requires the UN to avoid actions that could hinder the Court’s work or decisions.
Making similar arguments, a coalition of Ukrainian civil society organizations too condemned Guterres and called for the ICC Prosecutor’s Office to seek any relevant information from Guterres’s meeting for ongoing investigations. The organizations also urged international bodies to take action to prevent similar incidents in the future, highlighting ongoing human rights violations in Ukraine during the conflict.
The Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group (KHPG), one of Ukraine’s oldest human rights organizations, ridiculed the visit in an article titled “Russia Kills More Ukrainian POWs [prisoners of war] While UN Secretary-General Wines and Dines with Putin.”
These reactions, however, reflect an oversimplified view of the UN Secretary-General’s responsibilities. Antonio Guterres’s primary mandate is to act as a mediator among all member states, facilitating dialogue and fostering cooperation, particularly in times of conflict.
Accordingly, Secretary-General’s engagement with leaders from the Global South, including Russia, during the BRICS summit was an attempt to keep lines of communication open and to explore avenues for peace, even amidst a climate of deep-seated polarization. Critics who expect Guterres to unambiguously condemn Russia or support one side are overlooking the necessity of dialogue in conflict resolution.
The UN operates under a framework that mandates neutrality and inclusivity. Russia remains a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and any inclination to sideline it could have serious repercussions for the UN’s credibility and functionality.
To take a side would not only undermine the UN’s impartiality but also risk exacerbating divisions that already threaten the organization’s effectiveness. Guterres’s approach reflects an understanding that genuine mediation requires the participation of all parties, even those with whom there are profound disagreements.
However, the issue in the context of the Ukraine conflict lies in the clash between expectations for a swift resolution and the realities of international relations.
The demand for immediate, clear-cut positions on the conflict from the UN Secretary-General reflects a broader impatience among Ukrainians and within the international community. As a result, the complexities of negotiation are often overshadowed by the desire for decisive action.
If Guterres were to abandon his neutral stance, he would only further entrench the animosity between warring parties, making future dialogue nearly impossible.
Guterres faced additional criticism for not attending Ukraine’s global peace summit, which took place on June 15-16 in Switzerland, with representatives from approximately 100 countries and organizations in attendance. A total of 78 countries and four organizations signed the final joint communiqué of the summit. Since then, several countries have joined the growing list of signatories.
In a statement ahead of BRICS summit, Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry said, “The UN secretary-general declined Ukraine’s invitation to the first global peace summit in Switzerland. He did, however, accept the invitation to Kazan from war criminal Putin.” The statement added, “This is a wrong choice that does not advance the cause of peace. It only damages the UN’s reputation.”
However, the reality is that Guterres’s absence from this peace summit in Switzerland highlights the delicate balancing act he must perform. Attending would have required him to align with Western proposals, thus alienating Russia—a move that could have jeopardized any prospect of future negotiations. His decision to engage with BRICS leaders instead indicates a strategic choice to seek understanding and potential pathways to peace, even in the face of criticism.
As Guterres continues his efforts to mediate amidst criticism, we must recognize that the role of the UN Secretary-General is not to serve as a mouthpiece for one faction but to embody the principles of diplomacy, dialogue and inclusivity. Only by engaging with all parties, even those whose actions we may vehemently oppose, can we hope to find a pathway toward lasting peace.
Bahauddin Foizee is an analyst & columnist focusing on the assessment of threat/risk associated with business, economy and investment as well as legal, security, political and geopolitical threat/risk. His articles on these areas as well as on social, environmental, financial and military affairs in the Asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific and Middle East regions have been widely published.
OpEd Column Syndication 