[Bodhi Chai, Shongjog columnist]

In his recent Op-Ed article for the Oped Column Syndication, risk analyst and columnist Bahauddin Foizee argues that the criticism of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres for attending the BRICS summit in Russia reflects a misunderstanding of his role in promoting dialogue and diplomacy, as Guterres seeks to mediate in a complex international landscape without taking sides

This commentary aims to very briefly discuss Foizee’s arguments in defense of the UN Chief’s visit to Russia and his diplomatic engagement with Putin.

Bahauddin Foizee’s arguments on the backlash against UN Chief for his Russia visit sheds light on the intricate and often contentious nature of international diplomacy. The criticism leveled at Guterres for engaging with Vladimir Putin amid the ongoing war in Ukraine raises essential questions about the role of the UN and the expectations placed on its leadership.

At the heart of this debate is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Secretary-General’s responsibilities. Critics argue that Guterres’s attendance implies tacit support for Putin’s aggression, particularly given Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s refusal to meet with him following the summit.

Zelensky’s sentiments reflect a broader Ukrainian frustration with perceived Western inaction and a desire for unequivocal condemnation of Russia’s actions. However, such a perspective risks oversimplifying the complex web of international relations and the vital role of dialogue in conflict resolution.

The UN’s mandate emphasizes neutrality, and the Secretary-General’s engagement with all member states—including those involved in conflicts—is crucial for fostering communication and potential peace.

Guterres’s decision to attend the BRICS summit was not merely a diplomatic faux pas; it was an attempt to maintain open channels, a strategy that is especially important in a polarized global landscape. Critics who demand a clear alignment with Ukraine’s stance overlook the practical implications of sidelining a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Moreover, the clash between immediate expectations for decisive action and the nuanced realities of diplomacy is palpable. The impatience evident within Ukraine and among its supporters often glosses over the necessity for sustained dialogue, which can only occur through engagement, even with adversaries. Abandoning a neutral position could deepen divisions and make future negotiations increasingly difficult.

Foizee highlights how Guterres’s absence from Ukraine’s global peace summit and his presence at the BRICS summit can be seen as part of a broader balancing act. By engaging with leaders from the Global South, Guterres is seeking not only to uphold the UN’s principles but also to explore pathways to peace that require the participation of all stakeholders, including those like Russia, whose actions are widely condemned.

Critics must grapple with the reality that in the realm of international diplomacy, the road to peace is often paved with uncomfortable engagements. Guterres’s actions underscore a commitment to inclusivity and dialogue, essential components in any effective mediation process.

As the Ukraine conflict continues, the emphasis should be on finding avenues for communication rather than imposing rigid expectations that may ultimately stifle the potential for resolution.

In conclusion, while the frustrations of Ukraine and its allies are understandable, the complexities of international diplomacy require a more nuanced approach. Antonio Guterres’s role as Secretary-General is not to serve as a unilateral advocate but to embody the principles of diplomacy and inclusivity necessary for any hope of lasting peace. Only through open engagement with all parties involved can the UN facilitate meaningful dialogue and pave the way for resolution in a conflict that has already caused immense suffering.