The UN needs to look in the mirror

The United Nations, with its commissions and agencies, has always been meant to be a beacon of hope, a guardian of peace and human rights. But in every tale where ideals mix with the human condition, shadows emerge, contradictions that make us a question: where was the moral compass lost?

In corners where conflict is the mother tongue, UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, should be the helping hand that aids without distinction, without prejudice, without hatred. Yet, reports bring us suspicions that this hand may be stained with the blood of those it was meant to protect.

School directors linked to terrorism, teachers exalting massacres, not as a discordant note, but as a sinister orchestra tuned to intolerance. How can education, which should be the neutral ground for cultivating peace, become a stage for the celebration of violence?

There’s a bitter irony when an organization created as a solution seems part of the problem. Kidnapping accusations by UNRWA members echo through the UN corridors and reverberate in our astonished hearts. A hostage, not just physical, but of the trust we place in this system.

It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that, at times, the UN seems like an intricate tapestry of good intentions where some loose threads reveal the reverse of everything promised. These are not isolated incidents but patterns that repeat, errors that seem part of the design.

A veil needs tearing, an inconvenient truth that demands light. UNRWA, under the auspices of the UN, was meant to be the guardian of human rights but finds itself haunted by the specter of sectarianism it was meant to fight.

What’s left is disillusionment, the sense of betrayal that grows with each new report released. The UN, with its commissions, was meant to be the shield against barbarism, not a mirror that sometimes reflects the very face of the monster it swore to defeat.

How can we expect the UN to be the judge of conflict when within its ranks are those who applaud the shedding of blood? How can we speak of peace when teachers instruct the alphabet of intolerance?

History teaches us that institutions are as fallible as the individuals that comprise them. But when those failings translate to violence, the cost is unbearable. The UN needs to look in the mirror and ask whether it still recognizes the reflection of its principles.

Trust, once lost, requires a Herculean effort to regain. And the UN, at this crossroads of its history, needs to redeem itself, not just with words, but with concrete actions that show its heart still beats to the rhythm of human rights.

Hope is the last to die, but it is wounded, bleeding in the reports of an education that should be synonymous with freedom, not oppression. The UN must not only heal its wounds but also stem the bleeding it causes in the world.

With each new day, with each new report, the UN faces a choice: to continue on a path that strays from its founding ideals or to return to the track of true justice and peace. There is no possible neutrality when it comes to humanity.

An internal revolution, an insurrection of conscience within the UN itself, is necessary for it to realign with the purpose that brought it to life. We cannot allow complacency with evil to be this institution’s legacy.

Ultimately, the UN must remember that it is composed of people, for people. Its mistakes are not just headlines; they are lives affected and destinies altered. The UN must return to being the safe harbor it promised, not a storm threatening the already turbulent seas of geopolitics.

And so, in the theater of nations, the UN has the leading role. The script is in its hands, and the audience – the world – waits for a courageous act, waits for the curtain to rise on a new era of transparency and responsibility. After all, history does not forgive those who choose silence in the face of injustice.