A special sesion will include a performance of Don Quixote, one of the company’s emblematic works.

On Sunday, the National Ballet of Cuba announced a special season to celebrate its 78th anniversary, the 81st anniversary of the United Nations (UN), and the 50th anniversary of the island’s Ministry of Culture.

RELATED:

Academic Ballet Encounter Reaches Cuban Communities

The first gala will take place on October 20 at the National Theater of Havana to honor the Ministry of Culture, coinciding with the celebrations of National Culture Day.

The program will include a performance of Don Quixote, one of the company’s emblematic works. Contemporary Dance of Cuba and the National Folkloric Ensemble will also participate, presenting renowned pieces from their repertoires.

The performances on October 24 and 25 will be dedicated to the UN anniversary. For this occasion, the National Ballet of Cuba will present Giselle in the stage version by the legendary ballerina Alicia Alonso.

🇨🇺 Through blackouts and shortages largely spurred on by the U.S. oil blockade, Cubans are still working hard to preserve the arts.

Cubans in ballet and acting display extreme dedication as they "live day to day" through hardships to persevere against U.S. sanctions. pic.twitter.com/jBvKYUMIWH

— Cuban Americans For Cuba (@Cubans4Cuba) October 14, 2026

The season will close on October 28th, commemorating the anniversary of the first performance given in 1948 by the then-Alicia Alonso Ballet, the precursor to the current national company.

During this final performance, “The Magic of Dance,” an anthology featuring highlights of 19th-century ballet in versions conceived by Alicia Alonso, will be presented, along with the epilogue to Gottschalk’s Symphony.

The institution explained that these performances aim to compensate for the cancellation of the Alicia Alonso International Ballet Festival of Havana, which cannot be held this year due to the country’s economic difficulties.

#Cuba | Cuba is reforming its state-owned enterprises to expand financial autonomy, boost domestic production, and strengthen cooperation with the private sector amid US sanctions.
The government says public ownership will remain central to its economic model.#EconomicReforms… pic.twitter.com/GJMG0FJz6d

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) October 16, 2026

teleSUR: JP

Source: EFE

The European Union and Turkey are preparing high-level talks before the end of October in an attempt to revive negotiations over Cyprus, following an initiative by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres.

Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides announced the planned meeting on 16 October during the European Council summit in Brussels, saying discussions would address both the resumption of negotiations over the island’s division and the possibility of improving relations between Ankara and the EU.

The initiative follows diplomatic contacts in New York involving Guterres, European institutional leaders and the Cypriot government. However, renewed differences over the conditions for negotiations have already cast doubt on whether the process can produce substantial progress.

On Sunday, 18 October, Christodoulides accused Turkish Cypriot leader Tufan Erhürman of imposing preconditions before formal negotiations could resume, particularly concerning arrangements for a rotating presidency in a reunited Cyprus.

The disagreement underlines the difficulties facing an initiative intended to reconnect the UN peace process with the EU’s broader relationship with Turkey.

Brussels seeks a negotiating role

Christodoulides said the planned meeting between the EU and Turkey would examine how to establish the necessary conditions for negotiations to restart within the previously agreed UN framework.

He indicated that any improvement in EU–Turkey relations would be linked to progress over Cyprus.

The president’s announcement in Brussels follows months of diplomatic consultations involving the Commission, European Council and UN.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa have urged Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to support the renewed peace initiative.

Turkey’s relationship with the EU encompasses trade, customs cooperation, migration and regional security. Ankara remains an EU candidate country, although accession negotiations have been effectively stalled for years.

Cyprus remains one of the principal obstacles to any substantial improvement in that relationship.

The island has been divided since Turkey’s military intervention in 1974. The internationally recognised Republic of Cyprus joined the EU in 2004, but EU law remains suspended in areas where its government does not exercise effective control.

The self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is recognised only by Turkey.

Disagreement over political equality

The UN has traditionally sought a settlement based on a bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities.

Negotiations collapsed at Crans-Montana in Switzerland in 2017 amid unresolved disputes over security guarantees, political representation, territory and the presence of Turkish troops.

Erhürman, who became Turkish Cypriot leader in 2025, has expressed support for renewed negotiations within a federal framework. However, he wants assurances about political equality and the structure of future talks.

The latest dispute concerns whether the principle of a rotating presidency between the two communities should be accepted before negotiations resume.

Christodoulides rejected that demand on 18 October, arguing that substantive questions should be negotiated together rather than settled in advance.

The Turkish Cypriot leadership regards rotating executive power as an essential element of political equality, while the Greek Cypriot side objects to making agreement on that arrangement a prerequisite for restarting discussions.

The disagreement has emerged despite recent efforts by the United Nations to improve relations between the communities.

In a statement issued on 13 October, the UN confirmed that Christodoulides and Erhürman had met in Nicosia and agreed to continue discussions, including participation in bicommunal initiatives.

The two leaders subsequently attended a joint event in Pyla, although their public differences persisted.

Turkey’s position remains decisive

A Cyprus settlement would require agreement not only between the island’s communities but also on Turkey’s military presence and the system of security guarantees established at independence.

Ankara has long maintained that Turkish Cypriots require effective political equality and credible security arrangements.

Greek Cypriot leaders argue that the continuation of foreign intervention rights and Turkish military deployments would be incompatible with a fully sovereign and reunited state.

The EU cannot resolve those differences independently of the UN process, but it can influence the economic and institutional framework within which a settlement might operate.

A comprehensive agreement would affect property ownership, trade, customs arrangements, border administration and the application of European law throughout the island.

The European Commission has sought a greater role in supporting the UN-led peace process, reflecting Brussels’ interest in progress towards a settlement.

Negotiations face immediate test

The UN Secretary-General’s personal envoy, María Ángela Holguín, has warned that the opportunity for renewed negotiations may be narrowing.

Disagreements over diplomatic representation, contacts with foreign missions and the status of Turkish Cypriot institutions have complicated relations between the two communities.

Christodoulides has also referred to a series of proposals intended to advance discussions, including the future of the fenced-off area of Varosha. Their full contents have not been publicly disclosed.

The proposed EU–Turkey meeting offers a separate diplomatic channel through which Brussels can assess Ankara’s willingness to support renewed negotiations.

No final date, detailed agenda or list of participants had been publicly confirmed by 18 October.

The immediate test will be whether the parties can agree on the basis for formal talks without attempting to settle disputed constitutional questions before negotiations begin.

This month’s biodiversity summit in Yerevan, Armenia, aims to push governments to meet the 23 targets agreed at Cop15 in 2022

• Can countries deliver on a deal to save the world’s plants and animals?

This month, nearly every country on Earth will return to the question of how to stem the rapid destruction of the natural world. Humans are driving it, but so far we have not found a way to stop it.

In late 2022, governments reached an ambitious once-in-a-decade deal to better protect nature amid scientific warnings that the planet is going through the largest loss of life since the extinction of the dinosaurs. Now, they are assessing their progress on the targets for the first time.

Continue reading...

© Photograph: Andrej Ivanov/AFP/Getty Images

© Photograph: Andrej Ivanov/AFP/Getty Images

© Photograph: Andrej Ivanov/AFP/Getty Images

More than a dozen Indigenous representatives from Peru, Brazil, Colombia and Ecuador are participating in the Oct. 19-23 U.N. conference on transnational organized crime, known as COP13.

Press TV – October 18, 2026

Yemen has condemned the international community’s silence on Saudi Arabia’s ongoing aggression and blockade, saying it emboldens Riyadh to continue its atrocities.

The Yemeni Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates, in a statement released on Saturday, said the Saudi military continues to target ordinary people and civilian infrastructure, as it has done over the past years.

The ministry denounced Saudi strikes on civilians and non-military installations as a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocol I of 1977.

In the latest attack, a series of Saudi airstrikes targeted a residential neighborhood in the Maqbanah district of Yemen’s southwestern Ta’izz province, killing nine civilians, including a woman and a girl, and injuring 16 others.

The statement also censured the deafening silence of the international community, which claims to uphold human rights while lecturing others about them.

It noted that such an approach would offer Saudi officials the carte blanche to keep on their brutalities, and would make the international community complicit in Riyadh’s crimes and aggression.

The Yemeni foreign ministry then called on the international community, particularly the UN Security Council, the Human Rights Council, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as human rights organizations, to abandon double standards, condemn the heinous crimes committed against Yemeni people, and pressure Saudi Arabia to honor its obligations under international humanitarian law.

The ministry finally emphasized that Saudi atrocities would not go unpunished, and that the House of Saud, “whose hands are stained with blood and whose fingers with guilt,” would be held accountable.

On July 20, the Sana’a government announced a maritime blockade against Saudi Arabia in response to “an unjust and oppressive siege” on Yemen for almost 12 years.

Subsequently, the Yemeni armed forces have reported a series of successful missions that have targeted vessels associated with Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea.

In March 2015, Saudi Arabia and its allies imposed a blockade on Yemen, initiating a comprehensive military offensive that received support in terms of military, political, and logistical assistance from the United States and several Western countries.

Tens of thousands of Yemenis have lost their lives; however, Saudi Arabia has failed to achieve its primary goal of reestablishing a puppet government that served its interests.

RT | October 17, 2026

The UN should resist pressure from Kiev’s Western backers and finally address the issue of widespread abuse of captured Russian servicemen in Ukrainian secret prisons, Russian Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik has said.

During a conversation with the chairman of the UN Committee Against Torture Claude Heller on Thursday, Miroshnik said that Moscow is aware of a whole network of such detention facilities, operating in Ukraine’s Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, and Sumy Regions as well as in the country’s capital, Kiev.

The Russian servicemen are “going through hell” in so-called “transit prisons,” which are set up at deployment points of Ukrainian military units and nationalist battalions, he said.

“The thugs, who hide their faces behind masks… and address each other only by their call signs, subject the captured Russian troops to inhuman abuse. Waterboarding, electrocuting, baiting with dogs and amputations performed without anesthesia are just a few examples of the techniques systematically employed by the Ukrainian tormentors,” the envoy, who is charged with documenting Kiev’s war crimes, stressed.

According to Miroshnik, captured troops are usually sent to those facilities in the early stages of their imprisonment, where they are held in cages, pits, and stone dungeons.

The Kiev government does not allow ombudsmen and human rights activists into those “torture chambers,” but the Russian authorities have gathered hundreds of accounts of survivors detailing what has been happening there, he said.

“This information had been passed on to the UN Secretariat on more than one occasion,” but no action followed, Miroshnik added.

By ignoring the existence of the secret prisons and systematic torture of Russian troops, the global body “encourages the spread of such criminal practices and disregard for the relevant UN Convention,” he added.

“Many experts are aware of this disgraceful phenomenon, yet there is a lack of political will to overcome the pressure from the foreign accomplices to the conflict, who shield the Kiev regime from accountability and prevent a thorough investigation of its conduct,” the envoy said.

While turning a blind eye to the torture of Russian troops, the UN published several reports accusing Russia of mistreating Ukrainian prisoners, based on accounts by POWs returned by Moscow to Kiev. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has labeled those accusations of abuse “disinformation.”

Last month, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the UN Secretariat was unable to properly perform its duties as most key positions are occupied by representatives of NATO countries.

The current team, led by [UN General-Secretary] Antonio Guterres, who is a Portuguese national, “promotes biased approaches and double standards, effectively serving the interests of a group of Western nations,” Lavrov insisted during a press conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.

Where heating is available, many cannot afford to adequately heat their homes. Only 32% of households reported being able to do so during the last heating season, a figure that dropped to just 1% in frontline regions.

Argentina’s delegation at the United Nations abstained from a resolution aimed at eradicating modern forms of colonialism, siding with the Trump administration and undercutting President Javier Milei’s recent demands over the British-occupied Malvinas Islands.

---

The vote took place in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly. The measure, presented by the Russian Federation, sought to ratify and reinforce the goals of Resolution 1514, the landmark text approved in 1960 that declared colonialism incompatible with the UN Charter and fundamental human rights.

Argentina’s diplomatic delegation chose to stand aside rather than endorse the initiative. The move placed the Milei government in line with the position promoted by the White House, which pressed allied governments to abstain.

RELATED: Argentine President Milei Toughens Malvinas Claim at UNGA

The resolution passed anyway. Delegates recorded 85 votes in favor, 49 against and 23 abstentions, sending the text to the full General Assembly for consideration.

The alignment extended beyond Buenos Aires and Washington. Chile, Costa Rica, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Peru and Paraguay joined the abstention, a bloc of right-leaning regional governments that followed the U.S. lead.

On the other side, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and India voted in favor. Their support reaffirmed the global backing for territorial integrity and decolonization processes, and set up a sharp divide within Latin America itself.

The Russian draft went further than the 1960 declaration. It extended the concept of colonialism to cover unilateral coercive measures and the economic and financial sanctions promoted by Washington around the world, a provision that made the vote a direct test of alignment.

The UN General Assembly’s Fourth Committee approved the draft resolution “Addressing contemporary forms of colonialism” by 85 votes in favour, 49 against, with 23 abstentions. Sponsored by Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Belarus, Palestine and others, it recognizes colonialism in… pic.twitter.com/MqgQfoMhME

— Digital Debate (@digdebate) October 16, 2026

Malvinas Contradiction Deepens

The abstention collides with the rhetoric Milei has used on Malvinas, the archipelago occupied by Britain since 1833. His government has campaigned publicly for the defense of sovereignty and demanded sanctions against oil companies operating on that Argentine soil.

The contrast sharpened in September, when the Argentine President addressed the General Assembly. There he read extended passages demanding the eradication of colonialism and stated plainly that the principle of self-determination “exists to liberate colonized peoples, not to enshrine situations derived from colonization.”

Those words sit uneasily with the vote his own diplomats just cast, or chose not to cast. The abstention, in effect, withheld support from a document that echoes the very argument Milei delivered from the rostrum.

The domestic reaction was immediate. Carlos Bianco, the government minister for Buenos Aires province, called the abstention an irresponsible act against a historic national cause. “The Malvinas question deserves a diplomacy that does not kneel. Abstaining in the face of colonialism is not just an embarrassment, it constitutes an act of irresponsibility. The Malvinas question must once again be defined by Argentines. And it will be,” Bianco wrote on social media.

The episode exposes a tension running through the Milei administration’s foreign policy. It has embraced Washington as its principal ally while maintaining, at least in public speeches, a sovereignty claim that Washington’s abstention strategy directly undercuts.

Milei dice que quiere recuperar Malvinas. En la ONU, la Argentina se abstuvo de votar contra el colonialismo.
Hace dos semanas, esa misma delegación decía que Malvinas es una situación colonial.
Sobran las contradicciones. No tienen política exterior propia y desprecian al país… pic.twitter.com/I5cYaXCbvp

— Francisco Cafiero (@FranCafiero) October 16, 2026

Text reads: “Milei says he wants to take back Malvinas. At the UN, Argentina abstained from voting against colonialism. Two weeks ago, that same delegation said that Malvinas are a colonial situation. The contradictions abound. They have no foreign policy of their own and despise the country they govern.”

Argentina’s historic position on Malvinas has long drawn broad support across Latin America and the developing world, precisely the coalition that voted in favor of the resolution Buenos Aires declined to endorse.

The measure now moves to the plenary, where the same fault lines are likely to reappear. What Argentina does there will reveal whether the abstention was an isolated calculation or a settled posture. For now, the vote leaves a record that is hard to reconcile: a government that speaks of liberating colonized peoples, yet declines to vote for a resolution doing exactly that.

Efforts to raise hundreds of billions of dollars to preserve the world's oceans, forests, rivers, lakes and other parts of the natural world have fallen short ahead of a key U.N. summit on biodiversity.

The UN says Colombia’s new rules could let police end dialogue prematurely and use force against demonstrators.

---

The United Nations warned Thursday that Colombia’s new rules governing protests could give police excessive discretion to use force, potentially putting peaceful demonstrators at risk.

RELATED: Colombia’s First National Strike Against De la Espriella Met With Police Crackdown

Signed Tuesday by President Abelardo de la Espriella, the decree changes police procedures during demonstrations, allowing authorities to act against people committing violent acts without waiting for dialogue with protesters to conclude.

In a statement released Thursday, the UN Human Rights Office in Colombia raised concerns about the criteria for ending negotiations, the decree’s definition of violence and the circumstances under which authorities can intervene in road blockades.

Some provisions are open to broad interpretation, the office warned, potentially allowing authorities to end dialogue and resort to force.

Ver esta publicación en Instagram

Una publicación compartida por teleSUR English (@telesurenglish)

UN questions definition of violence

The decree identifies several grounds for intervention, including carrying or using weapons, holding people against their will, assaulting others and destroying infrastructure. The UN acknowledged that these acts pose different risks to life and physical integrity but said they must be addressed separately.

Action against people committing violent acts should not automatically end dialogue with demonstrators who continue to protest peacefully, the office said.

It also stressed that force, including less-lethal weapons, must be used only as a last resort, after nonviolent means of restraint have been exhausted, in accordance with General Comment No. 37 on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Colombian President Abelardo de la Espriella signed Decree 1525, a measure that facilitates police repression by broadening the definition of “violence” during popular protests.

Interior Minister Rodrigo Lara warned that the new regulation will take effect before demonstrations… pic.twitter.com/YYfouyRGyt

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) October 14, 2026

The office also criticized the decree’s definition of violence as broader than international standards, noting that it includes threats of aggression and conduct that does not necessarily cause injuries, deaths or serious property damage.

Authorities should distinguish between carrying an object that could be considered a weapon, threatening to use it and actually using it, the UN said. Possession alone does not make someone violent or change the peaceful nature of an assembly.

Road blockades do not automatically justify force

The UN warned that blocking a road does not, by itself, make a demonstration violent. It also called for a review of the decree’s reference to a “serious and imminent disruption,” saying the criterion could be used to justify breaking up peaceful protests.

The duration of a blockade, the importance of the road affected and the resulting economic losses should not, on their own, justify coercive action, the office said.

“Economic impact or disruption to the normal functioning of a productive activity should not, in themselves, constitute justification for the use of force,” it said.

The office acknowledged that some provisions could help protect the right to peaceful protest, particularly those distinguishing peaceful demonstrators from people committing violent acts. However, it insisted that protecting peaceful assemblies must remain the primary objective of any changes to protest regulations.

The UN office said it had consulted the Colombian government on the decree and that some of its proposed amendments were incorporated into the version signed Tuesday.

Legal expert says that Israel does more than anyone else to protect civilians, and that the manipulation of international law to vilify Israel is a threat to Western civilization

More than 38,000 killed, 11,700 left with lifelong disabilities, while nearly 1 million women and girls have been forced from their homes. See the full fact sheet

A week after two cargo ships were struck by drones off the Bulgarian coast, the attack was repeated even closer to our territorial waters with a similar outcome: one vessel was sunk, and another was abandoned by its crew, resulting in injuries and likely numerous fatalities. This is already having tangible consequences for Bulgaria. “Attacks […]

Drawing on dozens of interviews with intelligence and police officers across two continents, a Guardian investigation reveals the murderous cost of our insatiable appetite for cocaine

Read more: Latin American organised crime ‘may operate in 16 European countries’
Explainer: What is state capture and why does it matter?

As abductions go, few have been more brazen. Alan Jalloh was with two friends outside Goodies supermarket, frantic as usual with late afternoon shoppers. Rush hour in downtown Freetown, Sierra Leone’s capital, was under way with familiar gusto.

A black Toyota Rav4 forced its way through the Peninsula highway traffic. Witnesses describe burly white men leaping out, yanking on balaclavas. Jalloh, 40, seemed to freeze. As did his two friends, one a famous Freetown footballer. All three were dragged into the waiting SUV. None of them have been seen since.

Continue reading...

© Composite: Guardian Design

© Composite: Guardian Design

© Composite: Guardian Design

Parts of London look like a dump. But that hasn't stopped the UN from giving Mayor Sadiq Khan an award for "improving urban life". It's all very incestuous, says Charlotte Gill: the UN is just rewarding its cronies.

The post Why Was Sadiq Khan Given a United Nations Award? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

The detailed report, “Gaza in Numbers: Three Years Since the War Began, One Year Since the Ceasefire”, is based on data from Gaza’s Ministry of Health, the United Nations and its agencies, the joint Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment, and other international and human rights organizations.

Five years after seizing Kabul, the Taliban’s strongest argument for international acceptance rests on control. The Taliban governs every provincial capital and faces no conventional army capable of marching on Kabul. It repeatedly cites improved security as proof that Afghanistan’s post-2021 order is settled. But armed resistance is becoming more geographically dispersed, more organizationally diverse […]

The post Bit by bit, the Taliban is losing control of Afghanistan appeared first on Asia Times.

By Junaid S. Ahmad | MEMO | October 7, 2026

There are careers that end in triumph, careers that end in scandal, and careers that achieve the rarer distinction of staging their own final indictment. António Guterres has found his in Islamabad.

After nearly a decade as Secretary-General of the United Nations, he arrives in Pakistan in the twilight of his tenure and performs the ritual that has come to define him: smile warmly, praise generously, deplore abstractly, and avoid saying anything that might seriously inconvenience the powerful men standing beside him. His record is littered with eloquent concern, grave warnings and solemn appeals. What it has lacked, again and again, is the one quality that gives moral language meaning: courage when courage carries a cost.

In Islamabad, the performance is almost indecent. Guterres praises Pakistan as a source of “solidarity and solutions,” commends the “resilience” of its people, and assures them that the United Nations stands with them. Meanwhile, former prime minister Imran Khan remains imprisoned after the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention declared his detention arbitrary.

UN experts have raised concerns about his treatment, prolonged isolation and conditions of confinement; the UN Committee Against Torture has separately highlighted broader allegations of politically motivated detention, torture, intimidation and repression.

Guterres does not need opposition politicians or troublesome journalists to brief him. He could simply read his own institution’s reports. But that would ruin the choreography.

So the Secretary-General moves through meetings with Pakistan’s political and security establishment while one of the country’s most popular and persecuted political leaders sits behind bars. Outside the diplomatic bubble, Khan’s supporters confront barricades, arrests and the familiar machinery of coercion. The Pakistani state, chronically incompetent at governing, once again discovers astonishing administrative efficiency when citizens decide to protest.

And Guterres praises their resilience. The euphemism is almost grotesque. A population is subjected to repression, institutional decay and coercive politics, and the world’s senior international diplomat congratulates it for enduring the experience. It is the diplomatic equivalent of praising a prisoner’s fortitude while refusing to ask who locked the cell.

But Islamabad is not a lapse in the Guterres record. It is the culmination of it.

The same moral evasion has defined his response to Gaza. For years, Guterres has described the catastrophe in increasingly apocalyptic terms: mass death, starvation, displacement, destroyed hospitals, shattered families, collective punishment and violations of international law. He has rarely lacked adjectives for horror.

What he lacked was willingness to name its most consequential possibility. Genocide.

When confronted directly, Guterres retreated into procedure, insisting that such a determination belonged to the courts. It was bureaucratic cowardice dressed as juridical sobriety. Apparently, a Secretary-General may describe the destruction of a people in exhaustive detail, denounce their starvation, mourn their children and warn of their dehumanization — but the moment the facts threaten to crystallize into the politically dangerous word, he develops an almost priestly devotion to institutional restraint.

The absurdity became complete when UN experts explicitly warned of genocide and a UN Commission of Inquiry later concluded that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. The institution Guterres leads could say what Guterres himself repeatedly would not. This was not neutrality. It was evasion refined into method.

That is the essence of the Guterres tenure: moral vocabulary without moral escalation. He has perfected the art of sounding anguished while remaining politically non-threatening. His speeches travel bravely to the edge of the necessary conclusion, stare into the abyss, invoke international law, then retreat into another carefully worded appeal to governments that have already demonstrated their contempt for it.

Gaza became a theatre of catastrophic adjectives without commensurate political naming. Pakistan now becomes a festival of diplomatic compliments beside a prison cell.

The parallel is devastating. In Gaza, the UN system could document devastation while its Secretary-General recoiled from the word that carried the greatest political charge. In Pakistan, UN mechanisms can document arbitrary detention, abuse and repression while their chief shakes hands with the authorities presiding over the system they have condemned.

That is not merely institutional contradiction. It is leadership failure.

No serious person expects a UN Secretary-General to command armies, free prisoners by decree or compel governments into decency. But the office possesses one form of power that cannot be dismissed so easily: moral authority. Guterres has spent much of his tenure conserving it so carefully that, when history demanded its expenditure, there was often nothing to show for it.

He has confused caution with wisdom and diplomatic acceptability with statesmanship. But statesmanship is not the art of saying only what power can comfortably tolerate. Its purpose, at decisive moments, is precisely the opposite.

And so Islamabad is a fitting final tableau: Guterres praising resilience while surrounded by evidence of why resilience is necessary; representing institutions whose own findings he seems unwilling to embody; smiling through repression in Pakistan after years of speaking around genocide in Gaza.

History will not care how many statements he issued, how solemnly he frowned, or how often he invoked international law.

It will ask what he said when speaking plainly became dangerous. Too often, António Guterres chose not to. He saw almost everything. He described almost everything. And when history demanded courage rather than description, he chose cowardice.

How Europe and the U.S. cynically turned Africa into a “cage without bars.” In 1960, remembered in history as the Year of Africa, 17 countries on the continent gained long-awaited political independence. It seemed that the nearly 500-year era of Western European empires had sunk into oblivion. But if you look closely at socioeconomic indicators, […]