The United Nations finds itself in a crisis of credibility, echoing the dark days that followed revelations about Kurt Waldheim's wartime past. Today, however, the controversy stems not from hidden history but from present-day actions that have compromised the organization's ability to serve as a neutral arbiter in global conflicts.
Secretary-General António Guterres has systematically abandoned the UN Charter's mandate for neutrality, particularly regarding the Middle East. His persistent moral equivalence between democratic nations defending themselves and terrorist organizations has created an unprecedented diplomatic rupture. For the first time in UN history, a sitting Secretary-General has been declared persona non grata by a member state. Israel's designation of Guterres reflects not diplomatic pique but a fundamental breakdown in trust that renders mediation impossible.
Neutrality is essential for a Secretary-General. Effective mediation requires the confidence of all parties. Guterres lost this trust when he failed to unequivocally condemn Iran's missile attacks deliberately targeting Israeli civilians, including a hospital, while simultaneously criticizing Israel's defensive responses. His statements often portray Israeli self-defense as disproportionate, while minimizing or contextualizing attacks by Iran and its proxies. Nor did he cooperate with Israeli and American humanitarian aid efforts in Gaza. Article 100 of the UN Charter requires the Secretary-General's neutrality. By abandoning it through selective condemnations, double standards, and inflammatory rhetoric, Guterres has violated his fundamental obligation and rendered himself ineffective as a peace broker.
Complicating matters is Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who is seen within UN circles as Guterres' "alter-ego" and "surrogate son." Since October 7, Türk has issued a stream of specious statements accusing Israel of "collective punishment," "war crimes," and "forced displacement"—claims that Guterres then amplifies. This coordination creates an echo chamber that reinforces bias instead of fostering objective analysis. Their pronouncements, echoed throughout the UN, appear to be designed to influence international judicial bodies and contribute to public hysteria, campus protests that threaten Jewish students, and a surge in antisemitic violence worldwide. I have witnessed first-hand how anyone within the UN who fails to regurgitate their talking points is subjected to death threats, intimidation and effective termination: This was the case with a brave individual I had the privilege of working with--the former UN Under-Secretary General for Genocide Prevention, who rightly refused to call Israeli actions in Gaza, following Hamas savagery on Oct. 7, a genocide.
The seamless messaging between Guterres and Türk suggests a predetermined narrative that elevates certain political positions over objective assessment. When the UN's top officials act as force multipliers for the Palestinian and Iranian narratives, they forfeit their credibility as mediators and become partisan actors in the very conflicts they claim to resolve.
The parallels to the Waldheim era are striking. Waldheim's concealed Nazi connections eventually destroyed the UN's moral authority; Guterres' open prejudice now renders the organization irrelevant in the very conflicts where leadership is most needed. Waldheim's effectiveness was partially preserved because his biases remained hidden; Guterres, by contrast, has made his prejudices explicit, destroying his utility as a neutral facilitator. Both leaders presided over the UN during periods when its relevance was questioned. Waldheim was criticized for condemning Israel's Entebbe rescue operation while remaining silent about Idi Amin's support for the Munich massacre. He led the UN during the passage of the "Zionism is Racism" resolution, which Secretary General Kofi Annan later called "a low point in history." Similarly, Guterres condemns Israeli and American defensive actions while excusing or minimizing terrorism that threatens the free world.
Guterres' recent criticism of US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities – conducted in coordination with Israel for defensive purposes – exemplifies his misplaced priorities. Following the attack, Guterres stated, "I am deeply alarmed by the recent US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, which risks escalating tensions in an already volatile region." His statements are a slap in the face to President Trump, who characterized the operation as a necessary step to protect American interests and allies.
By condemning these actions as threats to "international peace and security" while consistently downplaying Iranian aggression, Guterres has provided the Trump administration with a compelling rationale for UN defunding. Iran and its proxies have killed hundreds of Americans since 1979, with Pentagon estimates confirming at least 603 US deaths in Iraq alone, and broader estimates exceeding 1,000 Americans killed in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and recent incidents. Multiple conspirators linked to Tehran have been charged in plots to assassinate President Trump.
President Trump's executive order withdrawing from UN agencies and reviewing financial contributions reflects growing American frustration with an organization perceived as hostile to US interests and allies. When the Secretary-General criticizes American and Israeli self-defense while remaining largely silent about Iranian terrorism, he validates arguments that the UN has become a forum for anti-Western sentiment rather than genuine peacekeeping and effective conflict resolution.
The real victims of Guterres' approach are UN staff now facing massive layoffs under the UN80 reform initiative. Proposed cuts of 20 percent in key departments stem directly from declining American support, itself a consequence of the Secretary-General's partisan positions. Staff concerned about job losses should direct their frustration not at member states withdrawing support, but at leadership that has made such withdrawals inevitable by abandoning neutrality.
The UN now faces a stark choice: continue prioritizing ideological positioning over effective mediation, or return to the Charter's founding principles of neutrality and objectivity. Guterres has shown himself incapable of this recalibration, remaining fixated on Israel even as it destroys the organization's credibility. The Waldheim era taught us that concealed bias eventually destroys institutional legitimacy; the Guterres era demonstrates that open bias is even more corrosive, immediately undermining the UN's ability to fulfill its core mission. Until leadership changes course – or changes altogether – the organization will remain irrelevant in the very conflicts where the world most needs effective international mediation.
Eve Epstein is a communications strategist who has advised top UN officials, including a two-term Secretary-General. She is the principal and founder of Epstein & Associates, located in NYC.
