Anatomy of a Failed Leader
This article examines Guterres’ leadership, focusing on his approach to Israel and its broader implications for the credibility of the United Nations.

António Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General since January 2017, assumed office with a reputation for pragmatism and diplomacy. As a former Prime Minister of Portugal (1995–2002) and UN High Commissioner for Refugees (2005–2015), Guterres was celebrated for his empathetic leadership. However, his tenure as Secretary-General has been marred by accusations of ineffectiveness, bias, and a failure to address pressing global crises with impartiality.
This article examines Guterres’ leadership, focusing on his approach to Israel and its broader implications for the credibility of the United Nations.
The Role of the United Nations Secretary-General
The United Nations Secretary-General serves as the chief administrative officer of the UN and a global advocate for peace, as outlined in Chapter XV of the UN Charter. Responsibilities include overseeing the UN Secretariat, managing resources and staff, and ensuring the effective implementation of policies and programmes. The Secretary-General employs their “good offices” to mediate conflicts, foster dialogue, and promote peaceful resolutions. Under Article 99 of the Charter, they can also draw the Security Council’s attention to threats to international peace and security.
In addition to diplomacy, the Secretary-General serves as a public advocate, articulating the collective concerns of member states and representing the UN at high-profile events. Tasked with upholding principles of sovereignty, equality, and justice, the Secretary-General’s influence relies heavily on moral authority and cooperation from member states. This often leaves them constrained by geopolitical dynamics, particularly by the Permanent Members of the Security Council.
Guterres’ Record with Israel
The UN Charter, particularly Chapter VI, emphasises peaceful conflict resolution through negotiation and mediation. Articles 33–38 outline mechanisms for preventing conflict, but Guterres’ tenure reveals selective application of these principles.
A historical parallel illustrates these challenges. Prior to the 1967 Six-Day War, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser demanded the withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula. Bound by provisions requiring host-nation consent for peacekeeping missions, UNEF complied, leaving Israel vulnerable to an attack by a coalition of Arab armies.
In late 2024, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu requested the withdrawal of UN peacekeepers from southern Lebanon, citing Hezbollah’s militarisation near UN bases. Guterres rejected the request, arguing that the UN’s presence was vital for stability. Critics in Israel accused him of shielding Hezbollah and obstructing Israeli efforts to neutralise the threat.
This inconsistency exemplifies the challenges Israel faces within the UN framework under Guterres’ leadership: in 1967, withdrawal facilitated aggression; in 2024, refusal to withdraw emboldened a terrorist organisation.
Comparing Leadership: Ban Ki-moon and Kofi Annan
Guterres’ predecessors demonstrated a more balanced approach to Israel and broader international issues. Ban Ki-moon, who served as Secretary-General from 2007 to 2016, publicly condemned Hamas for using human shields during conflicts and consistently defended Israel’s right to self-defence. His measured criticisms of Israeli policies were tempered by recognition of its security needs, earning him a degree of respect from Israeli leaders.
Similarly, Kofi Annan (1997–2006) voiced criticisms of Israel at times but balanced them by emphasising Israel’s right to secure and recognised borders. Annan’s tenure was marked by efforts to mediate in the Middle East, and his leadership was seen as reflective of the UN’s founding principles of fairness and impartiality.
By contrast, Guterres has often appeared hesitant to criticise groups like Hezbollah or Hamas, even when their actions flagrantly violate international law. This perceived partiality has eroded trust in his leadership and undermined the UN’s credibility as a neutral mediator.
Guterres’ Relationship with Yasser Arafat
António Guterres’ engagement with Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), provides insight into his approach to Middle Eastern conflicts. As a Socialist leader in Portugal during the 1990s, Guterres maintained a visible relationship with Arafat, who sought international legitimacy while oscillating between diplomacy and terrorism.
Guterres frequently affirmed the PLO’s aspirations for statehood but rarely condemned its complicity in violence. Critics argue that this history has influenced Guterres’ tenure as Secretary-General, contributing to a perceived reluctance to hold groups like Hamas accountable, even when their actions flagrantly violate international law.
Broader Criticism of Guterres
António Guterres’ tenure has faced widespread criticism for perceived shortcomings in his advocacy and response to global crises. While he does not command military forces, his role as a moral and diplomatic leader requires effective advocacy for those suffering under oppression and conflict.
1. Rohingya Crisis: In 2017, Myanmar’s military displaced over 700,000 Rohingya Muslims. While Guterres condemned the violence as “ethnic cleansing,” his inability to galvanise international action left the Rohingya in prolonged vulnerability.
2. Syrian Civil War: The Syrian conflict, ongoing since 2011, has caused massive humanitarian suffering. Guterres’ efforts to advance political settlements and humanitarian aid have been widely seen as ineffective.
3. Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022 presented one of the gravest threats to international peace since World War II. Guterres’ delayed condemnation and limited diplomatic impact were criticised as inadequate.
4. Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: Escalations in 2020 and 2023 highlighted the UN’s limited role in mediating disputes. Guterres’ response was confined to statements urging restraint, failing to prevent ethnic cleansing or secure peace.
5. Afghanistan’s Fall to the Taliban: After the U.S. withdrawal in 2021, the Taliban regained control, triggering widespread human rights abuses. Guterres expressed solidarity with Afghan civilians but was criticised for lacking a coherent strategy to protect vulnerable populations.
While Guterres has often spoken against atrocities, critics contend that his leadership has failed to leverage the moral authority of his office to drive meaningful action.
An Unwanted Title
While Guterres faces substantial criticism, Kurt Waldheim (1972–1981) is often cited as the “worst-ever Secretary-General.” Waldheim’s tenure was overshadowed by revelations of his Nazi-era affiliations and perceived failures in addressing apartheid and Middle East conflicts.
Although Guterres lacks similar personal controversies, his perceived ineffectiveness and bias risk placing him alongside Waldheim in the annals of UN history.
A Vision for the Future
The challenges facing the United Nations are significant but not insurmountable. Historical precedents illustrate the potential for institutions to evolve and grow stronger through reform. The United Nations and its predecessor, the failed League of Nations, is only 104 years old.
In Europe, the journey from the Magna Carta (1215) to the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) spanned centuries. The Magna Carta laid the foundation for the rule of law, limiting arbitrary authority, while the Treaty of Westphalia established the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference, shaping modern international relations. These milestones were not instantaneous but emerged through persistent efforts to address systemic failures and conflicts.
China’s history offers another example of institutional evolution. The consolidation of the Middle Kingdom under the Qin Dynasty (221–206 BCE) unified warring states and standardised systems of governance, language, and currency. This unification was further refined during the Tang (618–907 CE) and Song (960–1279 CE) Dynasties, which promoted economic prosperity, technological innovation, and administrative sophistication. Such progress highlights the necessity of long-term commitment to reform and stability.
For the United Nations, these lessons are clear. Institutional maturation requires a commitment to restoring credibility, adopting thrift in operations, and embracing incremental improvements. By focusing on fairness, accountability, and tangible results, the UN can rebuild trust and adapt to the challenges of the 21st century.
Conclusion
By objective measures, Guterres to date has not been a successful or effective Secretary-General. He has not reached the standards of his predecessors, Kofi Annan or Ban Ki-moon, though time will tell if he stoops far enough to threaten Kurt Waldheim for an unwanted title.
It is my assessment that the United Nations is an indispensable institution. It is better to have a forum for nation-states to articulate and debate vexed matters than to not. However, the UN is at a critical juncture, as it is not fit for purpose and is in dire need of reform.
Bold action is required to restore its credibility and ensure it remains a force for peace and progress. This is likely to necessitate new leadership, replacing the Secretary-General, and a thorough overhaul of the upper echelons of UN departments and agencies. Donor nations should consider withholding funding until meaningful reforms are implemented, guided by clear and measurable key performance indicators.
As Albert Einstein observed, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” This applies to the UN, which must rethink its operational models to overcome inefficiencies and redundancies. A significant reduction in staff numbers and a focus on streamlining processes are assessed as essential to improving effectiveness.
With principled leadership and committed member states, the UN can transform its weaknesses into strengths, emerging as a beacon of hope, justice, and cooperation in an increasingly divided world.
Failure to act risks relegating the UN to irrelevance, a relic of an earlier era unable to meet the demands of a complex and interconnected global community. Reform is not merely an option; it is an imperative for the survival and success of the organisation.
About the Author
Colonel Michael Scott, CSC, is the CEO and Founder of the 2023 Foundation, a charity dedicated to combatting antisemitism and fostering peaceful coexistence.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the positions of the Australian Defence Force or the Commonwealth Government of Australia.
comments