By John Q. Hosedrinker Zelenskyy’s decision to reject UN Secretary General António Guterres’ visit to Kyiv after his trip to Russia resonates deeply with the state of international diplomacy today. The timing of Guterres’ potential visit, immediately following his participation in the BRICS conference in Kazan, where he appeared closeted with figures like Putin and Lukashenko, feels particularly tone-deaf. Ukraine is grappling with a war that poses a profound threat to its sovereignty, and here we have the head of an organization that is meant to uphold global peace currying favor with apparent aggressors.
The sentiment that Guterres was not welcome in Ukraine post-Kazan is not merely a matter of diplomatic etiquette, but a sharp rebuke of his actions as Secretary General. His willingness to engage with leaders whose countries are violating international norms raises alarming questions about his commitment to the principles of the UN. To embrace individuals like Putin and Lukashenko while simultaneously conveying a message of solidarity with Ukraine places Guterres in a precarious position, ultimately undermining his credibility.
Zelenskyy’s rejection of Guterres reflects a broader disappointment with the UN itself. The organization was founded to prevent wars and act as a stabilizing force on the global stage. When the leader of that organization visits one of the aggressors in a brutal conflict, it undercuts the very foundation on which the UN is built. There is a growing feeling of disillusionment—not just regarding Guterres, but with the entire structure of the UN. It has become painfully clear that, in many instances, its operations are hindered by corruption and political maneuvering that serve the interests of authoritarian regimes rather than the victims of their aggression.
The notion that Guterres is a “friend of tyranny and terror” cannot be dismissed lightly. The way he has navigated recent events suggests a troubling trend within the UN, leaning towards appeasement rather than accountability. It is difficult, if not impossible, to maintain legitimacy when the essence of neutrality is eroded by overtures to those who are responsible for gross violations of human rights. Guterres’ handling of both the Hamas and Iranian crises further illustrates his failures as a leader; vague and passive responses to active conflicts do nothing to restore faith in an organization that purports to protect vulnerable nations.
Zelenskyy’s bold stand is commendable. It is a statement that as long as Guterres maintains his questionable alliances, his presence will only serve to exacerbate the challenges Ukraine faces. Rejection is perhaps the only appropriate response to a man who shows more loyalty to despots than to the principles of international law and human rights. It serves as a reminder that the credibility of international leadership is built upon trust, and Guterres has systematically eroded any semblance of that trust with his actions.
This move by Zelenskyy might seem isolating to some, but in reality, it is an essential step toward reclaiming agency in an increasingly chaotic world. Countries like Ukraine cannot afford to be intimate with entities perceived as complicit in the actions that threaten their very existence. If solidarity among nations is to mean anything, it must begin with the acknowledgment of right and wrong, standing firmly against oppression while advocating for those in need.
It is a peculiar twist of fate that at a time when the world needs strong, decisive leadership from organizations like the UN, we find ourselves with a secretary-general who seems comfortable in the company of oppressors. Guterres’ failure to align himself with the moral imperatives that should guide his position renders him ineffective, necessitating the need for a hard stance from leaders willing to voice dissent. Denying him a platform in Ukraine is not just about rejecting a visit; it signals a rejection of the broader failures that have afflicted international diplomacy. As we look toward the future, the call for fresh leadership within the UN has never been more urgent.