Category: GA Resolutions and Reports

Where Did the Money Go? Inside the UN’s Misuse of Member State Funding for Victims of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

This week, I expose how Member States were told their contributions had funded “successful” projects for victims of sexual exploitation and abuse, while the UN’s own auditors found those very projects had failed completely.

In striking contrast to the Secretary-General’s triumphant account of successfully implemented projects for victims of sexual exploitation and abuse, the United Nations’ internal watchdog, the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) depicts a system mired in mismanagement, absent oversight, and outcomes so hollow they verge on tragic irony.

Five projects costing over $815,000 were meant to help 628 survivors of sexual exploitation and abuse in the Central African Republic rebuild their lives. Instead, they reflected a pattern of institutional negligence disguised as implementation success.

Victims were trained in agriculture without access to land, in hairdressing without a hair dryer, and in pastry-making without ovens.

The so-called “income-generating activities” generated no income; only frustration. OIOS field visits to Alindao and Bambari found women who had dutifully completed their vocational courses yet could neither farm nor open a salon. Those trained in agriculture discovered only after graduation that they had no access to land whatsoever -no plots, no communal fields, no arrangements for leasing or use. The implementing office, astonishingly, had never verified whether participants owned or could access land before investing funds into agricultural training. In effect, they were trained for an activity that was structurally impossible.

Equally, those trained in hairdressing received “start-up kits” that omitted the most essential tools: no hair dryers, no scissors, no power supply solutions. OIOS noted that no market analysis or feasibility review had been conducted; the Mission never examined whether these trades were viable in the targeted areas or how victims might sustain them. The projects were conceived in spreadsheets, not in communities.

Projects were launched in locations chosen by “professional judgment”, meaning, effectively, at random. Communities with the largest number of victims, such as Dekoa and Sibut (which accounted for 21 per cent of all recorded victims), were simply left out.

The implementing partner, hand-picked without any comparative advantage analysis had no office, no staff, and no demonstrated capacity in the Central African Republic. There was no review committee, no competition, and no oversight. Trainers were recruited ad-hoc, curricula were missing for two of five courses, and attendance didn’t matter: beneficiaries who stopped attending still received completion certificates and start-up kits.

The project steering committee that should have provided governance was never established. Eleven of thirty-six weekly progress reports simply stated “Nothing to report” while projects were floundering. Even the Trust Fund team in DMSPC and the Senior Victims’ Rights Officer issued recommendations that went unheeded. The Mission failed to monitor progress, delayed disbursements, and excluded even basic provisions like transportation and food for trainees travelling several kilometres to training sites.

The result? A programme ostensibly designed to restore dignity to victims became a showcase of institutional negligence: vocational training without vocation, empowerment without power, assistance without assistance.

And yet, a triumph, according to the Secretary-General. While the OIOS audit revealed governance failure and zero impact, the Secretary-General (SG) presented an entirely different picture to the General Assembly.

In his report A/79/789 dated 17 February 2025, titled Special measures for protection from sexual exploitation and abuse, the Secretary-General cited these same projects as a model of success. He proudly reported that since 2016, $5.1 million from 25 Member States had funded 21 projects, including those in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, and South Sudan, with “medical care, psychological support and vocational training” provided to victims. He then called on Member States to move away from voluntary contributions and establish a “predictable and sustainable funding model.”

The Trust Fund in Support of Victims of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, established in 2016, was created to bridge service gaps by providing vital support to complainants, victims, and children born as a result of sexual exploitation and abuse. The Fund’s governance is chaired by DMSPC, under USG Catherine Pollard, which also serves as the Implementing Office.

Its 2024 Annual Report echoed the Secretary-General’s optimism, claiming the “successful implementation and launch of 21 projects“, and emphasizing that “substantial resources are urgently needed to sustain support to victims”.

Its principal contributors listed in their own reports were:

  • United Kingdom – $1,117,000
  • United States – $620,000
  • Italy – $581,000
  • Norway – $393,000
  • Canada – $240,000
  • Japan – $200,000
  • Australia – $153,000
  • Bangladesh – $148,000
  • Germany – $120,000
  • India – $100,000
  • Nigeria – $100,000
  • Switzerland – $92,000
    Total: $5,188,000

Nice figures. Glossy charts. Positive reporting. 

The 2024 Annual Report reads like a success story, one slight problem, though: none of it was true.

The internal OIOS audit tells the opposite story: that the projects touted as successful in both the SG’s report and the Trust Fund’s annual report failed completely. The OIOS Report 2025/035, covering 1 January 2023 to 31 March 2025, detailed systemic failures:

  • No oversight or governance: No project steering committee was established to supervise implementation or review progress.
  • Arbitrary project locations: Sites were selected without predefined criteria, excluding major affected communities.
  • Copy-paste approach: The implementing partner simply replicated a vocational model used in another Mission, without any local context.
  • No due diligence: The partner was selected without comparative advantage analysis, and had no operational base in the country.
  • Missing curricula and unqualified trainers: For two of five courses, there were no curricula; the trainers’ qualifications were undocumented.
  • Certificates without competence: Beneficiaries who dropped out still received start-up kits and certificates.
  • Inflated costs and logistical chaos: Two of five MOUs omitted key delivery details, forcing MINUSCA to pay an additional $14,000 in transport.
  • Zero monitoring: Out of thirty-six progress reports, eleven contained no information while projects were ongoing.
  • Ignored recommendations: Repeated calls by oversight officers to fix basic deficiencies went unanswered.

The result, in OIOS’s own words, was that the projects “did not adequately meet the needs of victims” and failed to achieve any sustainable outcome. The contrast could not be starker:

  • OIOS found systemic failure, absence of oversight, and no measurable impact.
  • The Trust Fund celebrated completion and called for more funding. 
  • The Secretary-General reported success, progress, and implementation.

So which version of the truth did the Fifth Committee receive?

At stake is not only the credibility of the Trust Fund, financed by Member States such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, Norway, Canada, Japan, and others, but also the integrity of the United Nations reporting system itself.

How can the Secretary-General speak of successful victim-assistance projects when his own internal audit reports describe them as failed, mismanaged, and without impact?

While the Secretary-General urges Member States to establish a sustainable funding model for the Trust Fund, the very projects financed by it could not sustain a single beneficiary.

The victims trained to bake without ovens and farm without land are not merely metaphors for bureaucratic incompetence, they are living proof of an accountability system that exists only on paper. Who will then tell the Member States that the UN’s own victims are still waiting for assistance and that the only thing the Organization managed to generate was another report?

A while ago, my colleague Lucas Mendos criticized the commentators who called UN reports “useless,” pointing out how people often confuse low download numbers with low relevance. He rightly noted that most UN reports are technical in nature, written for specialized audiences, and should never be judged by clicks.

But that argument assumes one thing: that the right people actually read them.

So why aren’t Member States reading these reports?

How is it that in the same United Nations, the Secretary-General can deliver a glowing account of success while his own internal oversight body is documenting complete failure?

How can he stand before the General Assembly and ask for a more “sustainable model of funding” when the very projects he cites have collapsed under his watch?

And what are the Member States and ACABQ delegates doing about it? Why are they even paid if they cannot monitor how their own assessed contributions are spent, or whether the projects they fund are implemented as reported?

And what about the victims of sexual exploitation and abuse: the women and children the Organization vowed to protect and whose dignity it promised to restore?

What kind of dignity is this, when their names appear in reports as “beneficiaries” of projects that never worked, that left them exactly where they began?

The Trust Fund was created to support the victims of exploitation. Instead, it exposes a system that exploits even their suffering to sustain its own image.

And to the Fifth Committee delegates: read the reports. No one else will.

NB: a copy of this article will be sent to the Permanent Missions to the United Nations of each Member State listed among the contributors to the Trust Fund — so they may see how their funding was used, and what their reports did not say.

UNRWA Cuts Salaries of 480 Women Who Escaped the Bombs

Open Letter
To the Executive Directors of UN Women, UNICEF, and UNFPA

Nadine Kaddoura

Founder @CERTIORARIS and former UN Senior Staff

15 September 2025

To:
Ms. Sima Bahous, Secretary-General of the United Nations

cc:

Deputy Secretary-General, Ms. Amina J. Mohammed

Ms. Catherine Russell, Executive Director, UNICEF 

Ms. Diene Keita, Executive Director of UNFPA

Ms. Reem Alsalem UN Special Rapporteur, Violence Against Women and Girls

I am writing to alert you that 480 UNRWA women teachers have been unlawfully placed on special leave without pay after having fled under the bombs from Gaza to a safe haven outside the occupied palestinian territories, on their own.

In total, 584 staff have been affected, of which 480 are women.

480 women.

That means more than four out of every five staff punished by this measure are women. A shocking 82 per cent.

This level of disproportionate harm to women constitutes a glaring violation of women’s rights and requires immediate corrective measures and urgent redress, consistent with the mandates of your offices.

These women fled Gaza alone, with no support, under conditions of extreme hardship. Many had lost family members, seen their homes destroyed, and were left without access to basic healthcare or food to care for their children or themselves. Neither UNRWA nor any other agency offered them safe shelter, not even a tent.

Not even a tent.

With no protection, they had no choice but to seek safety and urgent medical care on their own.

They continued to work remotely from Egypt, fulfilling their duties despite everything. Yet the Commissioner-General decided unlawfully to place them on exceptional leave without pay for a full year.

The testimonies of these UNRWA women are unbearable. Some are now forced to clean homes in Egypt just to provide food to their children. Women in conflict and displacement, when stripped of income and social protection, face heightened risks of violence, including sexual violence and exploitation. Displacement, combined with economic insecurity, deepens their vulnerability. Women who cannot provide for their children are more easily coerced, more likely to be subjected to abuse in exchange for the bare necessities of survival. Refugee women denied access to jobs or financial services are left even more exposed, more susceptible to violence, abuse, and exploitation. Economic empowerment in such contexts is not simply about income. It is a tool of protection. The provision of salaries, support, and protection services is what now stands between these women and exploitation.

No explanation can soften what you will read next. I leave you to judge for yourself, in their own voices, below.

Testimony 1 – UNRWA Gaza Female Teacher

“After ten years of IVF, I finally had a baby but he was a child with special needs. When the bombing started, I ran with him to Egypt to keep him alive. My husband stayed behind to care for his parents. A few days later, they were all killed, my husband and his parents. Now it is just me and my baby. UNRWA cut my salary, and I cannot pay for kindergarten or for the care my child with special needs requires. I don’t know how I am supposed to manage.”

Testimony 2 – UNRWA Gaza Female Teacher

“My daughter was badly injured and had to go through more than seventeen operations. I brought her out of Gaza on a medical care option so she could be treated, but I had to leave my other children behind. They depend only on me and on my salary. Instead of helping me in this situation, UNRWA put me on unpaid leave for a whole year even though I kept working remotely with full dedication while caring for my daughter in hospital. How am I supposed to feed my other children in Gaza if I don’t even have my salary of 1,000 USD? What should I do? Tell me! What should I do?”

Testimony 3 – UNRWA Gaza Female Teacher

“I fled Gaza with my three children, running from the hell we were living through. When UNRWA cut my salary, I had no choice but to leave my children at home alone while I went to clean apartments for strangers just to bring them something to eat. How can I call this survival? What kind of life is this for me and for my children? Where is my dignity?”

Testimony 4 – UNRWA Gaza Female Teacher

“I left Gaza with my husband so he could receive cancer treatment. Six weeks later, he died. Now my children are still in Gaza, with no one to provide for them. They are living in tents, searching for food, suffering from malnutrition, and needing urgent care. And I have no salary to provide for them. Tell me, how am I supposed to keep them alive from here?”

In addition to the inherent right to protection and dignity, this decision directly contravenes United Nations General Assembly Resolution 64/290 (2010) on the right to education in emergencies. That resolution, grounded in international human rights and humanitarian law, explicitly recognizes education as lifesaving and fundamental during armed conflict. It affirms that education plays a critical role in preventing abuses against affected populations, including sexual violence, exploitation, trafficking, and the worst forms of child labour.

Further, the Incheon Declaration (2015), endorsed by UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP, UNHCR, UN Women, and UNFPA, established the global Education 2030 Agenda. Paragraph 25 clearly affirms that “education in emergency contexts is immediately protective, providing life-saving knowledge and skills and psychosocial support to those affected by crisis.”It also stresses that education equips children, youth, and adults with the tools to withstand and prevent disaster, conflict, and disease.

Women who once taught children in Gaza now find themselves silenced, cut off from their salaries, and forced into conditions of exploitation simply to feed their families.

I leave you with the image of Ritaj, a young Gazan student, sitting among the rubble with her calculator and notebooks. She went out of her building to find connection and to sit for her exams, despite being displaced and having lost her home. Even in destruction, she carried with her the tools of learning, the last anchor she had.

This picture, besides being a testament to this girl’s courageous determination, is also the clearest proof that education in emergencies is life-saving, it is protective, and it is dignity itself. To strip women teachers of their salaries in this context is to sever the very lifeline that allows children like Ritaj to hold on to hope.

I ask you, as women leading entities with clear mandates to protect women and safeguard their rights, including the right to education and the rights of children, to take immediate corrective action. 

Under your mandates, you hold a direct responsibility to these Gazan women and their children. Failure to intervene and redress this situation would constitute not only a breach of that responsibility but also a denial of the protection your offices are obliged to uphold. 

I urge you to exert all necessary pressure to rescind this unlawful decision and to restore the rights and entitlements of the UNRWA women affected by this unlawful decision.

Nadine Kaddoura

Founder CERTIORARIS; and;

former United Nations senior staff

Open letter to ED UNWomen, UNICEF and UNFPA 15092025Download

Taking Note and Doing Nothing: The UN’s Broken Promises on Racism and Harassment

Why does the United Nations repeatedly fail to address the firmly entrenched issues of racism and harassment within its own ranks? 

Every year, the Ombudsman’s Office sounds the alarm, highlighting systemic failures in the workplace and devastating issues such as racism and harassment in the workplace. Every year, the Secretary-General presents these damning findings to the General Assembly. 

And every year, member states respond with the same meaningless ritual: they “take note” of the report.

What does it take to break this cycle of inaction? And what does this cycle of repetition reveal about the United Nations’ internal accountability mechanisms?

Over four years, these reports have consistently highlighted two systemic issues:

  1. Racism: Persistent, widespread, and damaging to organizational culture and staff well-being.
  2. Systemic Upward Harassment: Particularly targeting senior female leaders, exacerbated by gender discrimination and patriarchal workplace norms.

Yet, despite repeated observations, no significant actions have been taken. In response to this ongoing inaction, on 22 November 2024, the Chair of the Sixth Committee (Legal) sent a letter to the Chair of the Fifth Committee, underscoring the importance of addressing the persistent issues raised in reports submitted by the Secretary-General, specifically the activities of the Office of the United Nations Ombudsman and Mediation Services (A/79/156).

Digging Into the Reports: A Closer Look at the Evidence

To understand the scale of this failure, we examine the Secretary-General’s reports from 2020 to 2024. Each year, the Ombudsman documented systemic racism and harassment, particularly against senior female leaders. Each year, the same issues resurfaced, unresolved.

2020 (A/75/160): “Upward Harassment” and Racism

The 2020 report noted:

“As the Organization moves towards the goal of gender parity, one negative effect is an increase in upward professional harassment, or mobbing directed at female managers at senior and other levels. A new female manager who is the subject of mobbing does not always find the support needed from senior management… She may have to build a network while negative information about her is being disseminated by those disgruntled at her appointment…she has to address gender discrimination in addition to mobbing.”

On racism, the Secretary-General reaffirmed in a letter that racism “violated the Charter and debased the core values of its community”.

Despite these critical issues being identified, no systemic changes were implemented, and these problems would resurface in future reports.

2021 (A/76/140): Skepticism on Racism

The 2021 report noted staff skepticism about the UN’s ability to address racism.

“The degree of awareness of racism in the workplace spans a wide range, from those who believe it does not exist to those who have experienced it and are highly sceptical as to whether it will ever be addressed in a meaningful way. Continuous learning and education on racism will be necessary to embed an anti-racist awareness and culture in the Organization.”

The persistence of skepticism among staff highlights the UN’s failure to address racism meaningfully, despite acknowledging its presence.

2022 (A/77/151): The Failure to Tackle Intersectional Bias

The Ombudsman 2022 report highlighted how multiple forms of discrimination—gender, race, age, and ableism—intersected to harm staff, particularly women in leadership. Despite a flexible regulatory framework, patriarchal workplace cultures rendered reforms ineffective.

“Racial discrimination may manifest itself in different, often subtle ways, from microaggressions to overt racism. Often, several elements intersect, for instance gender and racial discrimination, perceived age discrimination, and ableism… Even when the regulatory framework might allow for flexibility, it was often not applied by managers and a patriarchal workplace culture persisted.”

“Women, especially those appointed to senior positions, reported that they seemed to be measured by different standards compared with their male counterparts. Several women leaders contacted the Office about the harassment they experienced, ranging from microaggressions to overt aggression.”

2022 marked yet another year of the same issues being observed, with systemic discrimination entrenched and no clear evidence of concrete interventions or changes.

2023 (A/78/170): Racism’s Toll on Mental Health

Staff reported feeling unseen and devalued. Victims of racism sacrificed their mental and physical health to combat systemic issues. 

The 2023 Ombudsman report noted:

“Many United Nations staff feel marginalized, unseen, and not valued. Daily interactions and treatment of personnel are perceived to be misaligned with the aspirational frameworks of the Organization, with a negative impact on organizational culture. Victims of racism have engaged in addressing racism to the detriment of their health.”

Despite the creation of an Anti-Racism Team, the lack of tangible outcomes reflected a continued failure to address the root causes of these issues.

2024 (A/79/156): The Failure of Formal Complaints to Address Racism

Staff continued to report incidents of racism and bias, and the formal complaints process proved inadequate. 

Under Addressing Racial Bias and Discrimination, the 2024 report revealed that racism continued to persist within the organization, despite increased efforts to address it. While more employees have come forward to report incidents, the reliance on formal complaints channels has proven largely ineffective in resolving the issue. The report underscored that addressing bias requires more than formal processes; it necessitates an environment where staff feel safe to raise concerns and challenge discrimination without fear of retaliation. Until such an environment exists, racism will remain a deeply entrenched issue.

The systemic issues identified in the 2020 report were still unresolved four years later.

Why Is the UN Losing the Battle Against Racism and Harassment?

Over four years, the Ombudsman’s reports have exposed a damning reality: a workplace entrenched in systemic racism and harassment. And yet, nothing changes. The question is not whether the issues are clear—they are—but why the United Nations continues to ignore them. The answers are as alarming as the failures themselves:

1. The Secretary-General’s Missed Opportunities

The SG has the authority to act decisively, implementing reforms, holding senior leaders accountable, strengthen the Ombudsman’s mandate, and push member states to prioritize internal justice. 

However, the SG’s failure to act decisively has perpetuated systemic dysfunction, damaged staff morale, and undermined trust in the UN’s commitment to its values. 

Year after year, the SG chooses not to act. Is it fear of disrupting internal power structures? Apathy? Or a belief that these issues are not worth prioritizing?

2. Member States Perpetuating Inertia

Member states also bear significant responsibility for this inertia. Despite funding the Ombudsman’s Office through assessed contributions, they refuse to hold the UN accountable for acting on its findings. Instead, they prioritize budgetary efficiency and avoid politically sensitive discussions about harassment and racism.

Why fund a mechanism that reveals systemic failures if you have no intention of fixing them? By failing to act, member states perpetuate the UN’s inefficiency and undermine its credibility. It becomes a bureaucratic exercise that neither protects staff nor aligns with the organization’s stated values.

3. Bureaucracy as a Shield

The UN’s deeply ingrained bureaucracy enables inaction. Critical findings are buried in processes and paperwork, allowing systemic problems to persist unchecked. Reports are “taken note of”—and promptly ignored.

Burnout and Brain Drain: The Cost of Inaction

The human cost is immense. Talented senior women and minority staff leave in frustration, their careers derailed by harassment and discrimination. Victims of racism suffer in silence or jeopardize their health fighting an unyielding system. Each year of inaction chips away at the UN’s credibility as an institution meant to uphold justice and equality.

The UN cannot keep ignoring these issues without losing whatever credibility it has left. If the Ombudsman’s reports are worth the paper they’re written on, they must lead to real change. Member states need to stop playing bureaucratic hide-and-seek, and the Secretary-General must decide whether leadership is a title or a responsibility.

But let’s be honest—next year, the same report will be submitted, and once again, it will be ‘noted.’

Because if there’s one thing the UN excels at, it’s inaction perfected to an art form. At this rate, we’ll be ‘taking note’ of the same issues for another decade.

Dichotomy of a Genocide 

A brief while before the onset of the new Gaza war on October 7, heads of state conveyed promising declarations at the 78th United Nations General Assembly.

Unbeknownst to them, just a few days later, a devastating  Genocide would tragically unfold on the Palestinian people in the Gaza strip.

The Israeli Prime Minister’s earnest endeavor in the General Assembly was to persuade the audience of his nation’s commitment to peace and progress in human rights:

“I’ve long sought to make peace with the Palestinians. 

See, the Palestinians are only 2% of the Arab world. 

The Palestinians must abandon the fantasy of destroying Israel and finally embrace a path of genuine peace with it.  

Let me show you a map of the Middle East in 1948, the year Israel was established. 

Here is Israel in 1948. It’s a tiny country, isolated, surrounded by a hostile Arab world.

For peace to prevail, the Palestinians must stop spewing Jew-hatred and finally reconcile themselves to the Jewish state. By that I mean not only to the existence of the Jewish state but to the right of the Jewish people to have a state of their own in their historic homeland, the Land of Israel. “

Judging by this morning’s obliteration of 56 residential structures and an entire community in the Northeast Gaza locality of Shujaiya, one might infer Israel is indeed steadily progressing toward its horrendous ambition: to kill the remaining 2% of the Arab Palestinian population.

Perhaps by doing so, Israel may finally achieve inner and lasting peace. With an insatiable thirst for blood, it seems that Israel will not rest until it kills every Palestinian.  

And so, the Genocide continues… to an extent that Martin Griffith, the head of OCHA, made a statement yesterday that  – Gaza may need a special tribunal to investigate Israel’s atrocities.

As for President Biden, addressing the General Assembly, he said the international community needed “to be able to break the gridlock that too often blocks consensus on the security council.”

Break the gridlock?

There is nothing blocking the gridlock like the US is.

Blocking consensus?

There is no one killing the consensus like the U.S is.

President Biden further cautioned the international community that:

“Russia believes that the world will grow weary and allow it to brutalize Ukraine without consequence.

But I ask you this: if we abandon the core principles of the UN charter to appease an aggressor, can any member state in this body feel confident that they are protected? If we allow Ukraine to be carved up, is the independence of any nation secure?

We have to stand up to this naked aggression today and deter other would-be aggressors tomorrow”

Indeed, the USA effectively put a stop to it.

From October 7th onward, the USA utilized its veto power to reject any General Assembly and Security Council resolutions aimed at even temporarily halting the ongoing massacre.

It almost appears as if the US administration is comfortable with the idea of Israel wiping out Palestinians with impunity, under the assumption that global attention will eventually fade. 

And so the Genocide goes on….

As for the European Union, it has put forward a robust proposition for reform of the Security Council and its veto power. According to them, this power was being misused, leading to a stalemate within the Security Council.

The European Union astutely highlighted the inherent conflict of interest when a P5 nation holds the capacity to veto a resolution aiming to impose sanctions against it. This observation strikes a chord of sound logic.

Emphasizing the conflict of interest, the European Union backed an initiative proposed by France and Mexico to restrict the veto power during mass atrocities.

In retrospect, however, this proposal was designed specifically with Russia in mind rather than genuinely with the aim of reforming the Security Council.

If we apply the same rationale, the United States should arguably be the first to lose its veto right, considering Israel’s conflict in Gaza is fully subsidized by the USA.

The US administration has extended $14 billion in direct military aid to Israel, which includes vast quantities of bombs and tens of thousands of 155mm artillery shells. Unfortunately, these munitions continue to be directly used to kill and maim thousands of Palestinian children.

If President Biden’s statement holds any weight, the United States should cease using its veto to block cease-fire demands and promptly put a halt to its military aid to Israel, given the significant role that US weapons and military aid play in prolonging the ongoing massacre.

And so the Genocide lives on…

While on the topic, Australia pointedly censured Russia’s manipulative ploys on food security, ones that accoring to them resulted in “millions left hungry”

It seems that the Australian government currently finds it acceptable that 2 million Palestinians lack fundamental life necessities such as food, water, electricity, and basic healthcare. Apparently, the plight of hunger among Palestinians escapes Australia’s view, along with the notion that Israel is employing food deprivation as an illegal weapon in this war.

As to the Secretary-General, he drew the international community’s attention to a crucial principle:

“When countries break the Charter’s pledge for peace, they create a world of insecurity for everyone.

Exhibit A: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The war, in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law, has unleashed a nexus of horror: lives destroyed; human rights abused; families torn apart; children traumatized; hopes and dreams shattered. “

Mr. Secretary-General,

We present you Exhibit B: Israel’s Genocide against Palestinian People.

A nexus of horror:

Children killed.

Journalists killed.

Doctors killed.

Health care professionals killed.

Professors killed.

Caretakers killed.

Disabled people killed.

Poets killed.

Mothers killed.

Fathers killed.

Animals killed.

Human rights Killed.

Families Killed.

Children traumatized.

Hopes and dreams Killed.. 

Mr. Secretary-General,

We present you Exhibit B:

The Killing of Palestine by the International Community