United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres invoked Article 99 of the United Nations Charter on Wednesday, in a rare move aimed at formally warning the Security Council of the global threat posed by Israel’s war on Gaza.
Guterres has been calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” since October 18. But the Security Council has yet to adopt a resolution calling for a ceasefire, amid differences among permanent members. The United States, Israel’s main supporter, vetoed one resolution, while Russia, more critical of Israel, blocked another.
But what is Article 99 and does it have any real power to stop this war?
What is Article 99?
This is a special power and the only independent political tool granted to the Secretary-General in the United Nations Charter. This allows him to convene a Security Council meeting on his own initiative to issue warnings about new threats to international peace and security and issues not yet on the council’s agenda.
In Article 99, the Charter states that “the Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which, in his opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.”
Guterres will now have the right to speak at the Security Council, without having to be invited to speak by a member state, as is usually the case.
Why did Guterres invoke it?
In a letter to the Security Council released on Wednesday, Guterres said the Security Council’s continued inaction and the sharp deterioration of the situation in Gaza had forced him to invoke Article 99 for the first time since he had taken over as head of the UN. in 2017.
At least 16,248 Palestinians have died in Gaza and another 7,600 are missing.
He warned that law and order in Gaza could soon be broken due to the complete collapse of the humanitarian system, that there was no effective protection of civilians and that “nowhere is safe in Gaza.”
“The situation is rapidly deteriorating and turning into a catastrophe with potentially irreversible implications for the Palestinians as a whole as well as for peace and security in the region,” he wrote.
Can Article 99 end the conflict?
Considered the most powerful organ of the UN, the 15-member Security Council is responsible for maintaining international peace and security. If he chooses to follow Guterres’ advice and pass a ceasefire resolution, then yes. It will have additional powers to ensure the implementation of the resolution, including the power to impose sanctions or authorize the deployment of an international force.
But that gives Guterres no power to force the Security Council to adopt a resolution.
Anthony Arend, a professor of government and foreign service at Georgetown University, told Tel Aviv Tribune: “He can force a discussion, he can bring the parties together and encourage them to come to some sort of compromise. But because of the Security Council veto, the only way the Security Council can pass a substantive resolution on this issue is if each of the five permanent members chooses not to veto it.
China, Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom and France hold this veto power.
The United States used its veto on October 18 against a resolution that would have condemned Hamas’ attack on Israel while calling for a pause in fighting to allow humanitarian aid to Gaza. Twelve other Council members voted in favor, while Russia and the United Kingdom abstained.
When was it invoked in the past?
It has only been invoked four times in the past: in Congo (1960), East Pakistan (1971), Iran (1979) and Lebanon (1989).
- July 1960: Congo — Then-Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold requested an urgent meeting with the Council on “a matter which, in my opinion, may threaten international peace and security”, after the Congolese government asked the UN to provide military assistance to protect against Belgian attacks. forces.
- December 1971, East Pakistan — On Wednesday, UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric recalled the time when then Secretary-General U Thant cited Article 99 to request the Council’s intervention security in the war in what was then known as East Pakistan, and is now Bangladesh. It is unclear whether U Thant’s reference to Article 99 represented a complete invocation of the rule.
- December 1979, Iran — Austrian diplomat Kurt Waldheim, as Secretary General in the late 1970s, used Article 99 on December 4, 1979 when 52 Americans were held hostage by Iranian fighters at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran after the Islamic Revolution in Iran.
- August 1989, Lebanon — Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar used it to call for a cease-fire in Lebanon’s escalating civil war.
The article was initially designed as a prevention tool, a bit like a warning system. Its use was intended to deter conflicts from escalating, but as in the case of the war against Gaza, the article was also used after conflicts escalated.
“The fact that this tool has not been used since 1989 has diplomatic and symbolic resonance here in New York,” Daniel Forti, the UN’s senior international advocacy and research analyst, told Tel Aviv Tribune. Crisis Group.
Has this ever brought peace?
The use of Article 99 has had mixed results in the past, although it has never really brought peace.
Indeed, the secretary-general’s intervention does not “fundamentally change the political calculus of the most powerful members of the Security Council,” Forti said.
In 1960, for example, the invocation of this article led the Security Council to adopt Resolution 143, calling on Belgium to begin the withdrawal of its troops. It also sent UN peacekeeping forces to facilitate this task. But the Congolese war continues, Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba is assassinated and the country’s crisis will worsen in the years that follow.
The Security Council also called for the release of American hostages in 1979, and Waldheim was authorized to “take all appropriate measures” to achieve this. But the hostages were held for 444 days, and two were killed. The others were only released after the signing of the Algiers Accords in 1981.
The Security Council also called on all parties in Lebanon to work toward a ceasefire in 1989, after the last use of Article 99. But the conflict continued.
In the case of the current conflict, the United States has so far strongly opposed a ceasefire resolution in the Security Council, and there is little evidence that Washington’s position has changed.
How did Israel react?
Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan, did not welcome the decision. In an article on X, Erdan described the letter as “further proof” of Guterres’ “moral distortion and bias against Israel.”
“The secretary-general’s call for a ceasefire is in reality a call to maintain Hamas’ reign of terror in Gaza,” said Erdan, who also reiterated his call for Guterres to resign.