UN leadership needs unbiased diplomacy — Jamil Changlee — Opinion

UN leadership needs unbiased diplomacy

October 12, 2026·2 min read

Dear Editor,

According to the United States Holocaust Museum, “The legal term “genocide” refers to certain acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.^[1] Genocide is an international crime, according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948). The acts that constitute genocide fall into five categories:

Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

Although the term “genocide” is often used, its commission is rare when compared to other serious crimes that are not defined by an intent to destroy a targeted group, such as crimes against humanity and war crimes.”

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is a part of the United Nations and has not issued a final ruling in the case brought by South Africa on the accusation of Genocide occurring in Gaza.^[2] As a candidate seeking to lead the United Nations, it is important that the position of this judicial arm of the UN be taken into consideration. Because of the definitive position taken by our nation’s candidate before the issuing of a final ruling, bias against Israel and its allies such as the U.S. can be implied. This has unfortunately led to the rejection of our candidate and the view she presented on behalf of our President.

Being the leader of the UN requires strong diplomatic relationships and strong unbiased leadership. Balancing perspectives in very complex issues is important and allows for the prevention of conflicts and the resolution of ongoing conflicts. It is also important that personal religious beliefs do not compromise the required neutrality and impartiality that must exist in the leader of the UN before a final judgment is rendered by the ICJ. This is a must have for leading such a large and complex organization. The current structure of the United Nations caters for this complexity, and it is important that the organization within the UN with responsibility for determining which position the leader of the UN must support based on the facts presented in this case be allowed to make such a determination. Any indication of a predetermined position will be rejected by key members holding an opposing view and will be seen as premature. Unfortunately, the opportunity to remove this perception of bias was not capitalized on and our nation’s opportunity to lead a united world towards global peace has been significantly diminished. Going forward we must strengthen our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation’s diplomatic capabilities if as a nation we continue to strive for a stronger presence in the global leadership structure.

Sincerely,
Mr. Jamil Changlee
Chairman
The Cooperative Republicans of Guyana

References

What is Genocide? - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum — www.ushmm.org ↩
Israel’s genocide in Gaza: Whatever happened to South Africa’s case at the ICJ? | Middle East Eye — www.middleeasteye.net ↩

Source

UN leadership needs unbiased diplomacy in Kiskadee Watch, October 12, 2026

The International Court of Justice is examining the case that South Africa has brough against Israel, accusing it of genocide in Gaza ... In December 2023, South Africa accused Israel of genocide before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for its war on Gaza. ... But almost two years later, the ICJ, the world's highest court, is still hearing the case, with no judgement likely any time soon. ... In July this year, the ICJ extended by six months the deadline for Israel to deliver its counter-arguments to South Africa’s allegations under the Genocide Convention, prompting fears the case would be delayed. ... On 29 December 2023, South Africa accused Israel, before the ICJ, of breaching the Genocide Convention of 1948. (I have previously covered the legal status of genocide). ... In the interim, South Africa requested that the ICJ issue “provisional measures”, which are orders that bind Israel to refrain from and prevent acts of genocide. On three occasions, the ICJ has responded with provisional ... against Israel. Prevent genocidal acts: On 26 January 2024, the ICJ said that the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from genocide faced a serious and urgent risk of irreversible breach. Israel was also told to allow humanitarian aid without obstruction. However, the ICJ did not order a ceasefire. ... Immediately halt its military operations in Rafah: The third ... , on 24 May 202 ... , was the most pointed, stating that the risk of genocide in Rafah, southern Gaza, had significantly intensified. It also required Israel to keep the Rafah crossing open for humanitarian assistance. These orders by the ICJ are legally binding on Israel. But so far, Israel has rejected the allegations and largely failed to comply. ... 202 ... Gerhard Kemp, professor of international criminal law at UWE Bristol Law School, says that South Africa is now reluctant to return to the ICJ for new provisional measures because Israel ignored orders previously issued. ... “The provisional measures orders have not been enforced and the genocide has worsened,” ... diplomat said. ... Bringing further provisional measures, they said, could ultimately delay the merit of the case itself. ... 26 January 2024: The ICJ issues the first of its provisional measures. South Africa is given nine months to file its written submission of legal arguments and evidence (known as a “memorial”). 5 April 2024: Following a 29 February 2024 meeting with the parties, the ICJ sets deadlines for the two states to deliver their written arguments; 28 October 2024 for South Africa to file its memorial (nine months from the January 2024 order) and 28 July 2025 for Israel to file its counter-arguments (known as “counter-memorials”) October 2024: South Africa files its memorial. April 2025: Israel requests an extension of six months, which South Africa opposes. The ICJ compromises, granting a five-and-a-half month extension to 12 January 2026. ... Mike Becker of Trinity College Dublin's School of Law suggested that following the submission of Israel’s counter-memorial, due on 12 January, the ICJ will decide whether a second round of written pleadings is necessary. ... Under this scenario, South Africa would need to file a second written pleading with the ICJ by mid-2026. Israel would follow suit in late 2026 or early 2027. Once the written phase has concluded, the ICJ will schedule oral hearings. Becker suggests this could be in April or May 2027, if nothing else arises that could require additional delay. ### When will the ICJ make its final judgement? Experts believe that it will come in late 2027 or early 2028. “Once the hearing takes place, the court is pretty consistent in taking between six and eight months to produce the final judgment,” says Becker. “If there are no unexpected surprises, this could mean a final judgment on the merits in this case by the end of 2027 or the beginning of 2028.”