Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. If you're following the news from the Middle East, you probably know that some of the global debate about what's happening in Gaza and Israel has been taking place in New York. That's where the UN Security Council last week and the UN General Assembly yesterday voted on different resolutions calling for a humanitarian ceasefire. Now, in both cases, the large majority of countries voted for the resolution, the United States voted against. Neither resolution seems likely to matter very much to the protection of either Israelis or Palestinians.

We're going to take a step back now and ask can the United Nations play a meaningful role in this conflict? Its own website describes the UN as, "The one place on earth where all the world's nations can gather together, discuss common problems, and find shared solutions that benefit all of humanity."

The UN was created just after World War II, as many of you know, with a charter that begins with these words, "We, the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and small." That's the opening of the UN Charter. The UN succeeded the League of Nations created in a similar spirit after World War I, but which failed to prevent World War II.

Is the United Nations doing any better? What is the United Nations today? To what extent does it matter in the world to the aims that its charter cited there, saving people from the scourge of war and promoting human rights? Can the United Nations play a meaningful role in resolving this conflict, or protecting civilians from Hamas or the Israeli military? With me now is The New York Times United Nations Bureau Chief Farnaz Fassihi. Previously, she was the senior writer and war correspondent for The Wall Street Journal for 17 years based in the Middle East. In that role, she was on this show multiple times. Farnaz, always good to have you on the show. Welcome back to WNYC.

Farnaz Fassihi: Good morning, Brian. Always good to be on your show and talk with you. Thank you for inviting me.

Brian Lehrer: I want to try to do two things in this segment, talk about the news coming out of the UN regarding the conflict and look more deeply at the role of the UN in the Middle East and in the world. Let's start with a refresher on the difference between the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council because both bodies voted on ceasefire resolutions in the last few days, and I'll bet a lot of people listening actually don't know what the difference is. What is the difference between the Security Council and the General Assembly? Where would you start?

Farnaz Fassihi: I would start by saying that the General Assembly is the collection of 193 member countries that are part of the UN, who are members of the UN. This is where collectively member states get together to debate a particular issue in that General Assembly hall, the famous one that we also see once a year during the annual gathering, and they meet regularly on multiple issues. This is really the representative of the wider UN membership.

The Security Council is a body that was created in the aftermath of World War II with specifically the task to secure and protect the world from conflict and threats of stability and insecurity. Their particular job is to prevent wars and also to mitigate and end wars. It has 15 members. Five of them are permanent: the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom. These five members have veto power. The other 10 members take two-year rotating roles as part of the council.

The resolutions that the Security Council adopts, and as you pointed out that the council has tried a few times to adopt a ceasefire resolution for this particular war and the US blocked it and didn't allow it-- during the Russia-Ukraine war, multiple resolutions about Russia's invasion of Ukraine were blocked by Russia. That's really where political dynamics between world powers come into play. It's really a reflection of the divisions and polarization of the world we see. Often you see Russia and China take a mutual standard position together, and US and its European allies together. On this particular issue, the US has really been the lone voice in opposing a ceasefire at the Security Council in the Gaza conflict.

There was a resolution on Friday calling for an immediate end to the fighting because the humanitarian situation is, of course, catastrophic, as UN officials and aid agencies have been saying, but also because the Secretary-General António Guterres invoked a rare diplomatic tool at the UN called Article 99, in which it allows the Secretary-General to demand that the Security Council actually announce the ceasefire when a conflict threatens the global security and instability where it has wider reach.

The resolution was put forth by the only Arab member of the Security Council, the United Arab Emirates. 13 countries voted in favor, the UK abstained, but the US vetoed it. Effectively, the vetoes that the US has exercised have blocked and paralyzed the Security Council in adopting resolutions that would end this war.

Brian Lehrer: We'll come back to these various resolutions of the last few days and the UN's role in this particular conflict, but taking a step back, it's amazing to think, when we see as you just reiterated who the permanent members of the Security Council are with veto powers over any resolution: the US, the UK, France, China, and Russia. Amazing to see how persistent the countries that have a lot of power, that are the world powers in the world remain-- that list of powers was drawn up at the end of World War II in the 1940s, and it still leaves the United States on one side, and Russia and China on another side or other sides who are still the influential powers in the world.

I know a lot of countries in Africa, and Latin America, and the Arab world say, "Hey, we should have one country on the Security Council with veto power too," but that's not the way it is. Also when we look at who the dominant powers in the world are that actually control world events so much, it's still the United States, Russia, and China. It's just incredible that it's been those people for so long since that list was determined in the 1940s.

Farnaz Fassihi: One of the pressing issues that keeps coming up exactly to your point is that the Security Council was created in 1940s, and the world looks very different right now. There are other economic powers, there are other political powers. The criticism to the Security Council and the UN is that it doesn't reflect the reality of our world today. It overlooks India as a major economic power in Asia. It doesn't have any African representative or Middle Eastern representative. Brazil is one of the countries that has been mentioned in trying and advocating to get on the council as also a major political and economic power in Latin America.

There's a lot of discussion about is it possible to reform the Security Council and what that reform would look like. Certainly the plan that everybody seems to want, but doesn't know how to get to is to expand the permanent members, to have representatives of other continents and other regions, but the issue of then would we give it veto? Would we allow these countries to have as much power as the traditional P5? That's where the stumbling block is because the countries that have the power don't want to share it because they know that then that would jeopardize the power that they have also over the Security Council. The issue of yes, that council needs reform, it needs to be more representative and reflective of the reality today is very much on the table, but nobody knows how to get there.

Brian Lehrer: This distinction between the Security Council resolutions being binding and the General Assembly, the larger body that includes all the nations, resolutions being non-binding, let's say the Security Council had voted for a ceasefire. Does it then have the power to enforce it in any way?

Farnaz Fassihi: No. The Security Council and the UN don't have a military task force or an army or anything to enforce anything, but Security Council resolutions are considered international law. They're considered binding. What it means is if a country then violates the resolution, then the council can take other measures. It can discuss and impose sanctions on that country as it has, for example, done with Iran or with North Korea over the nuclear and ballistic missile programs and whatnot.

In fact, there is a Security Council resolution that was adopted against the expansion of settlements in the West Bank calling for Israel to stop the expansion of settlements, but they don't have a way of enforcing it. If Israel or other countries don't abide by it, then they have to think about other punitive measures. It's safe to say-

Brian Lehrer: What the Security Council passes is considered international law, but there's no enforcement mechanism?

Farnaz Fassihi: Right. The enforcement mechanism would be to then consider further punishment if a country violates that resolution.

Brian Lehrer: If the purpose of the UN on paper, let's say purpose number one, is to avoid war as much as possible, do you think it has ever prevented or shortened a war in real life?

Farnaz Fassihi: No. I think that the United Nations has failed in the founding role to prevent war and conflicts, and to even mitigate them, to end them in any meaningful way, particularly over the past I'd say two decades. In fact, I had a story a few weeks ago about how the UN has really evolved from that role as a conflict mediator into a global humanitarian aid agency.

As the UN's powers have diminished largely because of divisions within the world, or the way real politics work in the world, the veto power of the Security Council, countries looking less to resolve issues through the UN. The UN has really become a major indispensable player with resources that really no government or private sector has in delivering humanitarian aid.

For example, through its World Food Program, the tens of millions of people that it feeds in the world; or UNICEF, which helps children in conflict and in other parts; UNRWA, the agency that helps Palestinian refugees, which is really now the core lifeline in Gaza. We see that the dominant role that the UN has played in conflicts from Russia to Ukraine, and in our time and in actual disasters, is to step in as a global aid agency.

When I was doing my story and I interviewed Martin Griffiths was the chief UN humanitarian official at the UN, he said that we view humanitarian work as a conflict-preventing measure too. We think that making sure that people have food or they have work or they have shelter also helps prevent conflict and helps prevent societies from falling down. They view it internally as one thing, but for sure they have failed in that role in being able to prevent conflicts.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, if you're just joining us, my guest is Farnaz Fassihi, who's the UN bureau chief for The New York Times. We're trying to do two things in this segment on the heels of two resolutions at the UN: one in the Security Council on Friday, the more powerful body in the UN; and one in the General Assembly yesterday, both with very large majority of countries calling for a humanitarian cease-fire in the Israel Hamas war, but in both cases, it not having any effect with the US vetoing the Security Council resolution on Friday, and the General Assembly resolution being generally non-binding anyway.

We're talking about the UN, a little background on the UN and what its role is supposed to be since it was created in the 1940s, especially in preventing or shortening wars, and what it actually is on the ground today. Then we will get to these particular resolutions and the disputes over them and what could happen next at the United Nations in this particular case. We can take phone calls from you on either of those things, 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692 calls or text messages.

A number of people, Farnaz, are calling in on what we've been discussing so far, which is more the basic structure of the United Nations and who has power there. Let's take one of those calls from Billy in East Orange. You're on WNYC, Billy, thank you for calling in.

Billy: Good morning. I'm 71 years old, and I'm getting so pessimistic about the history of this planet. When you look at the snapshot of countries World War I, World War II, the continuation of some form of colonialism, and you have a structure, the Security Council, where the most heavily armed, militaristic leadership exists, and without some impulses for demilitarization. Yesterday, the State Department shipped $100 million of shells for the Israeli tanks to keep killing babies, journalists, healthcare workers-

Brian Lehrer: Billy, I want to stay a little bit out of the present conflict for the moment, but I hear you on that, and the larger point that he's making about the UN, Farnaz, is interesting. I guess it's one way to look at it. The five members of the Security Council, the five permanent members with so much power that they have veto power, are among the most heavily armed countries in the world, the United States, China, Russia, France, and the UK.

Of course, there are other heavily armed countries too, but it's an interesting way to look at it, that if the main purpose of the United Nations is to prevent wars, well, who has all the power? It's the countries with the most arms.

Farnaz Fassihi: Right. I think maybe the idea was that if you have the countries that have the most arms, and some of them, the US, Russia, are nuclear powers it's important to have a platform or a place where they engage regularly on issues and they communicate, and they can sit around the table. I think that also has value. We often see a lot of-- particularly during the Ukraine and Russia war, a lot of public spats obviously, and disagreements and divisions between the US and Russia, who are both major military powers and nuclear powers.

At the same time, every month, the Security Council holds a breakfast meeting at the country that has the rotating presidency and all the ambassadors gathered, and even during the height of those tensions and those divisions where they were exchanging really sharp words at the Security Council, the diplomats would gather to have breakfast or to meet formally or informally. The idea in diplomacy is that there is value in those kinds of interactions.

Brian Lehrer: In fact, the next call we're going to take is from Josh in Turtle Bay. Turtle Bay is sometimes referred to as the neighborhood that houses the United Nations on the East Side of Manhattan, and I think he's going to say they do play some constructive role in preventing wars. Josh, you're on WNYC. Hi there. Do you work for the UN in some capacity?

Josh: Hey, Brian. I work in a foreign mission here, and I think you guys, like you said, anticipated my comment, that just having the channels open, you have a country like Israel that's cut off from a lot of countries. They don't have diplomatic relations for historical and cultural reasons in a lot of part of the world, but the United Nations is a place where they can get together and they can talk things out. Just because officially they don't have a chance to interact with other nations, they can actually do that in the UN and that has to play a huge role in mitigating and shortening and even preventing conflicts, just being able to get messages across. Sorry to belabor the point, but it just came up in the conversation. Thank you. Have a great day.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you for reinforcing the point. All right. We're going to break here and then we're going to come back and continue with Farnaz Fassihi, UN bureau chief for The New York Times, and talk specifically about what happened in the last few days with these two resolutions for a ceasefire and why there were different points of view, even if the vast majority of countries in the world were on one side and the US and a very small number of other countries were on the other side. What was the dispute here and what might happen there next, because some things could happen there next? Stay with us, Brian Lehrer on WNYC.

[MUSIC - Marden Hill: Hijack]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC, as we talk about war, peace, and the United Nations, and now particularly the UN resolutions calling for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war over the last few days with Farnaz Fassihi, who's the UN Bureau chief for The New York Times, and who previously had covered the Middle East for The Wall Street Journal for 17 years. Here is the current president of the General Assembly, the ambassador from Trinidad and Tobago, Dennis Francis, calling for the passage of yesterday's resolution.

Dennis Francis: In the name of humanity, I ask you all, once again, stop this violence now.

Brian Lehrer: The General Assembly vote yesterday after that call was 153 in favor of the ceasefire resolution, 10 against, plus 23 abstentions, and here is US spokesman John Kirby on MSNBC this morning, saying in brief why the US remains opposed to these otherwise widely popular ceasefire resolutions.

John Kirby: We don't support a general ceasefire at this time. That basically would leave Hamas in power in Gaza, basically validates what they did on the 7th of October, and of course gives them a much larger amount of time to restock, restore themselves, and to refit and plan and conduct additional attacks.

Brian Lehrer: Farnaz, can you explain from the other country's perspective, the majority of countries, why won't these resolutions include condemnation of the October 7th attacks, which the US says is missing? Well, I've also heard that they don't demand that the International Red Cross be able to visit the hostages, so the US and Israel consider these ceasefire resolutions too one-sided. Why would other countries argue that they are not if they don't seem to condemn Hamas' violence against civilians and only Israel's?

Farnaz Fassihi: One of the major divisions also in both with, as you mentioned, with the Security Council resolutions, and this one was US saying that partly the reason that the US doesn't want to vote for it is because the resolutions don't condemn Hamas. Some of the countries that explained, including Pakistan, some of the council members that have explained that they oppose having only Hamas called out and said if there's a language in a resolution that calls out Hamas for the terrorist atrocities and terrorist attack on October 7th, then there must be also language about Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories over the past 75 years.

Also yesterday, Pakistan's ambassador said that they want to see language in the resolution that says Israel was the perpetrator of the violence or what's happening in Gaza. I think that's the division that is blocking or preventing from that kind of language being there because the opponents say, "If you want to call out Hamas, we want to also call out Israel."

Brian Lehrer: To Israel's and the US' contention that a general ceasefire would allow Hamas to restock-- John Kirby used that word 'restock' in the clip, and stage more October 7ths. What's the sense of the world regarding that fear and possibility if the ceasefire doesn't require Hamas disarmament too?

Farnaz Fassihi: The level and scale of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza that the UN officials who were in charge of aid agencies and humanitarian relief work and also Palestinians has reached proportions that the UN has said, the head of the World Food Program, the Secretary-General, Martin Griffiths, everyone who's engaged in humanitarian aid relief have said that because there's no safe place in Gaza, that there is no safe enclave or a place where civilians can shelter and aid work can be done, short of an actual permanent ceasefire, they can't really deliver that humanitarian aid.

They can't get the scale of essential needs, food, fuel, water medicine that is needed. Disease is spreading as the conflict goes on because there're 30,000, 40,000 people living in one school, using one bathroom. The lines to use the bathroom are often four, five hours long. There's no services. There's garbage, sewage. There's no food, so all of this is creating an environment that the majority of countries and UN officials calling for a ceasefire say that, "We can't really save Palestinian civilians or help them if the war continues, if the airstrikes continue, if the military invasion continues."

In calling for a ceasefire, they don't necessarily say that, "Oh, we oppose Hamas being dismantled," but they just want the protection of civilians and the fighting to end and I guess for diplomacy to resume. That seems to be the dire situation in Gaza. There are reports of 15,000 civilians killed. About 70% of that number are women and children. Two thirds, about 80% of the 2.2 million population are displaced. A lot of the infrastructure in Gaza is completely demolished, including apartment buildings or schools or hospitals. Things have collapsed, so if the fighting continues, it makes it very hard from the viewpoint of humanitarian work to help the people that are stuck and trapped there.

Brian Lehrer: I think Elena in Dunedin, Florida might want to follow up on that. Even with the incredibly dire situations, and you don't have to believe Hamas to know that many thousands of civilians have been killed. You only have to believe your newspaper, The New York Times, which reported the other day on independent estimates that the pace of civilian death has outpaced anything in any war in this century, including the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The humanitarian catastrophe is incredibly dire, and yet that language is unsatisfying to Israel, which also wants to protect its own people. I think Elena in Dunedin, Florida is going to follow up on that. Elena, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Elena: Hi. Hi, Brian. Thank you for taking my call. Yes, I had the powerful experience of listening to the video of the Israeli ambassador's speech last night, where in the middle of the speech, he and his staff put on the Jewish stars reminding the world that there has been no resolution as far as I know, and as far as what he was saying about condemning-- you were just talking about condemning Hamas' attack and insistence still on wanting to kill every Jew. Iran, where Guterres apparently was smilingly greeting an official from Iran who is supporting this kind of horrendous stuff all over the world against Jews and other-

Brian Lehrer: Guterres, the UN Secretary-General. Go ahead.

Elena: Correct. The UN Secretary-General, the head of this whole organization, meeting with a terrorist country who is supplying and supporting and really running Hamas and other similar organizations to still want to wipe out every Jew. If not now, when? All of this is never again as now. I can imagine, when are they going to have a resolution condemning the atrocities? It's not equivalent. It's not equivalent to say that because we don't have the language on the occupation, and on whatever else Israel is doing. This is specifically genocidal against Jews everywhere, not just in Israel, to kill every Jew behind every tree. Why is this smiling picture of him greeting Iran not being condemned by the whole of the UN and the Security Council?

Brian Lehrer: Elena, thank you very much. Yes, both sides are using the word genocide with respect to this. On that narrow point, and then we'll come back to the larger issues that Elena raises, Farnaz, I don't know about that photo with the Secretary-General and the delegate from Iran. I would guess that the Secretary-General's job is to be diplomatic with the representatives of every country in the world, including countries that are in serious conflict with each other, and countries that do horrible things because that's the role of the United Nations, is to get everybody in one room and talk to each other. Is there any reporting on that particular photo op? Is that a controversy?

Farnaz Fassihi: No, I have not seen that photo, but Secretary-General meeting with representatives of the 193 member states is not considered controversial. During the annual UNRWA gathering in September, heads of states from all over the world usually come to the UN and meet the Secretary-General. You pointed out that is the purpose and rule of the UN to gather everyone in the room. His role as the Secretary-General is to offer his good offices and engage with everyone. During the Ukraine invasion, and some of the atrocities that unfolded there in Bucha and other places, the Secretary-General continue to engage with President Putin of Russia. That is, as you said, the role of the UN.

Brian Lehrer: Yet to Elena's larger point, even if they don't want to condemn the October 7th attack per se, without including what they see as underlying conditions like the occupation and the siege, why couldn't they have included a demand that Hamas not stage any future attacks, if they're demanding that Israel or even in the making this up, as I go along, but even in the short term, that Hamas stop firing rockets into Israel presently as Israel stop-- Did I say the wrong place?

I'm going to do this again. That Hamas stop firing rockets into Israel, even as Israel abides by whatever ceasefire they call for for its part. That language doesn't seem to be in there, and that seems to really bother the United States and Israel.

Farnaz Fassihi: The Israelis, right. One thing that I want to clarify is that when we talk about the UN or condemnation of Hamas terrorist attack or the firing of missiles, we have to separate the UN, Secretary-General, and the officials of the UN and the member states. Mr. Guterres, nearly all of the senior leadership of the agencies have very strongly in very plain language and clear language condemned Hamas' October 7th terrorist attack, they've called for the unconditional release of the hostages and for Hamas to stop indiscriminately attacking Israel with its missiles and drones. That language has been there from the UN side as such.

Where the divisions are is really among the countries, right? It's among the 193 states. It's really the negotiations between these countries in what language to include and what language to not include. That isn't a UN negotiation. It's really like, I don't know, Jordan and China and Denmark. Usually, the way it works is a country or group of countries draft a resolution, they work with each other and come up with a language then they circulate it among all the members, and they ask for feedback, then they negotiate on that feedback and come to some sort of conclusion.

Of course, as we've seen from the statements of the Israeli ambassador, none of the language has satisfied Israel or made it feel like its concerns, its legitimate concerns for the safety of the civilians are also taken into account.

Brian Lehrer: All right. Now, for the last few minutes of this segment, I want to turn to the rift that seems to be widening between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu, and whether that has any implications for what might happen at the UN next. For those of you just joining us, our guest is the UN Bureau Chief for The New York Times, Farnaz Fassihi. Because yesterday, folks, in case you missed it, even while the US was voting against the ceasefire resolution at the United Nations, President Biden was making his most serious public condemnation yet of the way Israel is fighting the war.

It was to a group of donors, it wasn't on tape, so I can't play the clip, but I'm going to read from the CNN version. From Biden, ""I think he has to change," referring to Netanyahu, "and with this government, this government in Israel is making it very difficult for him to move." Biden said calling Netanyahu's government the, "most conservative government in Israel's history."

Says Biden warned that support for that country's military campaign is waning and heavy bombardment of Gaza, and added that the Israeli government, "doesn't want a two-state solution," and Biden said, right now, Israel, "has most of the world supporting it, but they're starting to lose that support by the indiscriminate bombing that takes place." Certainly, Israel would disagree with that characterization of the bombing being indiscriminate, but it's big news that President Biden of all people used that word yesterday.

Farnaz, how different is that to your ear from anything Biden has said publicly before? Is that sentiment reflected in any way by US diplomacy at the United Nations?

Farnaz Fassihi: Well, I think pressure has built at the UN and diplomatically on the Biden administration to do more for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and pressures of the ceasefire. I think we mentioned it in our story, too, that yesterday's vote at the General Assembly with the US being one of 10 countries in the company minority with Guatemala, Liberia, Paraguay. These were the countries that the US was in the company of and against the ceasefire. It really showed the vote really underscored that the US and Israel are isolated globally on their position to continue the the military offensive and the war in Gaza. That pressure must be building up against the Biden administration.

We see some of the rhetoric and the language also changing here, where the US ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, when she gives speeches, she does say that the US is absolutely calling for protection of civilians. We've seen the phrase that Israel has a right to defend itself, but how it defend itself matters. We're seeing some of that frustration or the pressure that the US is facing reflected in the language. In terms of action, at least at the UN, the US' actions have remained steadfast and staunchly supportive of Israel.

Brian Lehrer: Finally, I want to play a clip of the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations think tank, Richard Haass, also on MSNBC this morning, generally very supportive of the United States playing a leading role in the world, saying what he thinks the United States' relationship to this conflict is becoming and what he thinks it should do next. Here's Richard Haass.

Richard Haass: The Biden administration has to be really careful here because we're beginning to look like enablers, and we begin to look feckless. We criticize Israel every day, we get ignored every day. What can we do? Let me suggest three things that I'm comfortable with particularly with one. One is in the UN, we can stop giving Israel pretty much an unconditional veto. Why isn't the United States introducing resolutions of its own that it believes in?

Brian Lehrer: We're almost out of time, Farnaz, but to one piece of that, why hasn't the United States introduced a resolution of its own, rather than just veto or oppose those written by other countries?

Farnaz Fassihi: It did. The US introduced the resolution on the Security Council that had the language that it wanted in condemning Hamas and in calling for protection of civilians and humanitarian access, better humanitarian access. Because the US resolution did not include the word ceasefire or demand a ceasefire, it was vetoed by Russia and China.

Brian Lehrer: There, we will leave it, as I often say at the end of these conversations, we're not going to solve the Middle East today, but we try in good faith to represent the grievances and aspirations of the peoples on both sides, on all sides. I'm sure we often fall short, but we try and that's our conversation for today with Farnaz Fassihi who is the United Nations bureau chief for The New York Times. Thanks so much for joining us, Farnaz.

Farnaz Fassihi: Thank you so much for having me, Brian.

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.