Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Danny Denon speaks to members of the press at a media stakeout before a Security Council meeting on the Middle-East. Credit: Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine/IPS
By Jennifer Xin-Tsu Lin Levine
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 21 2025 – “Multilateralism is not an option but a necessity as we build back a better world with more equality and resilience and a more sustainable world.”
Secretary-General António Guterres is not the first to laud multilateralism, the practice of collective action between multiple actors on the international stage, and he will not be the last. However, during his tenure as political leader of the United Nations, Guterres has faced significant roadblocks towards such a necessity, particularly in humanitarian aid work. This failure to act comes largely from specific dissenting member states whose power and influence hinder constructive progress.
This resistance is best exemplified in the case of Israel and the latest in a series of disagreements between the member state and the UN regarding the truth of events in the Middle East and Gaza surrounding food, humanitarian aid and the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a United States-Israeli aid organization that has been condemned by hundreds of humanitarian-focused non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Guterres has made repeated calls for multilateral aid and collaborative work in the region, calling at a recent media stakeout for Israel to allow UN humanitarian aid into Gaza, which he said had been blocked “for over three months.”
Israel, however, considers the GHF to be the only viable source of food in the area. Shahar Segal, spokesperson for the GHF, called the organization the only “right and possible way” to deliver aid “without feeding Hamas’ terror machine.”
The US similarly endorsed the organization, also using its Security Council veto power to block a resolution that would require lifting aid restrictions in Gaza. This standstill has not only fostered conflict between the various groups within the UN, but it has weakened the very principle of multilateralism that the UN was founded on in efforts to prevent another world war.
A rejection of multilateralism should not be surprising. As the Representative for the United States said in a recent General Assembly meeting about Responsibility to Protect, a doctrine meant to prevent crimes against humanity, “The United States will always act in accordance with our national interest and will not subordinate our sovereignty to shifting international norms.”
Many American lobbyists question the assertion that international issues are not relevant to the national interest.
Hassan El-Tayyab, Legislative Director for Middle East Policy for the lobbying group Friends Committee on National Legislation and co-chair of the US Ceasefire Coalition, spoke to IPS about the intersectionality between international law and US law.
El-Tayyab often utilizes overlap between US law and international law to make his case to politicians. He offered an example: under International Humanitarian Law, blocking humanitarian aid to civilians is unlawful. Under the Foreign Assistance Act, America must also block offensive weapons sales to countries that block US humanitarian aid.
El-Tayyab said of this strategy, “It gets at that accountability piece, but we’re using a US law framework, which can be a bit more palatable to these members.”
This isolationist mentality is just one of many indications of a global loss of trust in international law and multilateralism. Between America’s imposition of sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and repeated rejection of UN attempts to provide humanitarian aid, many governments have begun to delegitimize international actors like the UN and international courts of law.
Some, like the US, have taken the route of ignoring court rulings, while other states, like Russia, have openly criticized the ICC as a neocolonial power.
Jamil Dakwar, human rights lawyer and adjunct professor at New York University and Hunter College, acknowledged the flaws in international systems like the ICC or the International Court of Justice (ICJ), saying to IPS, “There is a history of international institutions not taking seriously human rights violations happening in the global North and not holding accountable powerful governments, particularly in western Europe and North America, particularly for the United States after 9/11.
“Those are very valid claims that undermine the legitimacy and the effectiveness of these international institutions, whether they are the ICC or the ICJ or the international human rights system as a whole, especially within the United Nations system.”
Dakwar references inaction from international courts, particularly when wealthy, influential western countries were involved, criticizing the institutions for a double standard.
However, Dakwar also criticized states that were ignoring international law, saying, “That said, that is not an excuse for other governments to flout international law just because other countries are not being held accountable or are undermining that very system.
“I think that what’s important to recognize is that these institutions do have a role, and they were tasked, and they were given the authority to uphold international law in the most difficult situations where diplomacy fails…there’s blame to be put on the major powers that are taking things into their own hands and not following international law.”
According to El-Tayyab, such disregard for the UN comes from what he calls “an à la carte approach to the charter.”
When countries see international mandates as suggestions or tools for their convenience rather than obligations, they erode the systems established to prevent world conflict and crisis.
Dakwar referred to this practice as larger, wealthier countries “bullying” those in the global South—forcing other countries out of fear to concede.
Dakwar told IPS, “There is a sense that it’s more expedient to remain silent and not to be proactive and outspoken on these serious violations of international law because of the consequences.”
However, that notion is untrue: Dakwar explained, “There’s not a single issue or situation where it will not have an impact on everyone, because it has an impact on migration, on climate and on the being of humanity as a whole.”
Both El-Tayyab and Dakwar are staunch supporters of multilateralism but, like many other actors invested in international relations and humanitarian aid, believe it must be put into practice in a much more unbiased, overarching way that centers all people’s humanity rather than being used as a tool for political gain.
For multilateralism to successfully accomplish its goals of unity and collective action towards peace, all countries have an obligation to put aside national motivations for the sake of global welfare that affects all people, including themselves.
Additionally, the UN must recenter marginalized countries, like those in the global South who have been undervalued and discounted in international discussions, to promote a stronger buy-in for all actors.
As El-Tayyab said, “All politics is local, and these member states make up the UN. The UN is us, in a way.” In adhering to this principle, all voices must be considered.
IPS UN Bureau Report
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById({js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);
Excerpt:
As the United Nations fails to resolve conflicts around the world, specifically in the Middle East, its key peacemaking principle of multilateralism seems to have lost its legitimacy and efficacy in an era of extremism and polarization.