In an awkward rivalry among EU partners, Portugal took 134 votes and Austria 131 while Germany garnered just 104, significantly below the required 127 votes despite Berlin’s expressed confidence just hours before that it would prevail.
Both winners were seen to represent the interests of smaller countries, while Austria could benefit from its perceived neutrality as a non-Nato member and Portugal touted its strong ties in Africa and Latin America.
According to the Palestinian letter, several recent Israeli measures in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are described as efforts by Israel to further consolidate what the letter characterizes as the annexation of Palestinian territories.
Wadephul’s bid won 104 votes in the UN General Assembly, falling 23 short of the two-thirds majority required for election.
This is the first time Germany has failed to win a rotating seat on the Security Council after decades of successfully securing one of the Western European seats every eight years.
„Für uns alle ist das eine wirkliche Enttäuschung. Das muss man sagen. Daran will ich nicht vorbeireden“, sagt Wadephul später im Interview mit den ARD-Tagesthemen. In der deutschen Delegation herrscht Katerstimmung. Bis zuletzt war man zuversichtlich, dass die vielen Last-Minute-Gespräche, die Wadephul seit Freitag in New York geführt hatte, ausreichen würden. Die Liste der vermeintlichen Unterstützer-Staaten schien lang genug zu sein.
The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday elected Austria, Kyrgyzstan, Portugal, Trinidad and Tobago and Zimbabwe to the 15-member U.N. Security Council for two-year terms starting on January 1, 2027.
Germany, which had lobbied hard for a seat, came third for the two places contested by the Western European and Others Group, with 104 votes, against 134 for Portugal and 131 for Austria.
In a special appeal, FM Rodríguez addressed U.S. citizens, particularly their youth, invoking their human values and pacifist sentiments. He urged them to seek the truth and resist manipulation by what he described as an “elitist, corrupted and powerful clique in Miami.” According to the Cuban diplomat, this faction does not represent the U.S. people nor the majority of Cubans residing in the United States, many of whom reportedly oppose the “barbarity of war and the blockade.”
The Flotilla serves as a critical test for the international community and the current „Board of Peace“ architecture. Legal experts argue that such frameworks cannot be used as colonial gatekeepers to convert the legal right of humanitarian access into a foreign-administered permission regime which perpetuates the denial of Palestinian self-determination. There is a growing demand for United Nations member states to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding whether the Security Council may lawfully endorse a regime that displaces Palestinian self-determination. By sailing, the Flotilla forces a choice upon international institutions to either uphold the rule of law or be complicit in a system that conditions life-saving relief on political approval.
The Iranian envoy, acting on instructions from Tehran, described the operation as a “blatant violation” of legal norms, including the prohibition of aggression, and argued that it displayed characteristics akin to piracy.
He further stated that the incident violated a ceasefire agreement reached on April 8 and amounted to an act of aggression as defined under UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974), warning that it poses a risk to both regional and global stability.
Tehran strongly condemned the U.S. action, calling on the UN Security Council and the secretary-general to adopt a firm and immediate position, explicitly denounce the incident, ensure accountability, and compel Washington to release the vessel, its crew, and all affected individuals without conditions.
Iravani also requested that the letter be formally recorded and circulated as an official document of the UN Security Council.
JOINT STATEMENT BY ALGERIA, ARMENIA, AUSTRALIA, AUSTRIA, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BELGIUM, BRAZIL, BRUNEI, CAMBODIA, CANADA, CHINA, COLOMBIA, CROATIA, CYPRUS, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO, DENMARK, EGYPT, EL SALVADOR, ESTONIA, FINLAND, FRANCE, GERMANY, GHANA, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HUNGARY, INDONESIA, IRELAND, ITALY, JORDAN, LATVIA, LIBERIA, LUXEMBOURG, MALAYSIA, MALTA, MOLDOVA, MONGOLIA, MOROCCO, NEPAL, THE NETHERLANDS, NORTH MACEDONIA, PAKISTAN, PANAMA, THE PHILIPINES, POLAND, PORTUGAL, QATAR, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, ROMANIA, RUSSIA, SIERRA LEONE, SLOVAKIA, SLOVENIA, SPAIN, SRI LANKA, SWEDEN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TIMOR LESTE, TURKEY, UNITED KINGDOM, URUGUAY, ZAMBIA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION
New York, 9 April 2026
We, the troop-contributing countries to the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), joined by several other Member States and the European Union, express deep concern over the escalation of tension in Lebanon since 2 March 2026 and its impact on the safety and security of peacekeepers. We condemn in the strongest terms the persistent attacks against UNIFIL, including the latest grave attacks which cost the lives of three Indonesian peacekeepers and injured several other peacekeepers from France, Ghana, Indonesia, Nepal and Poland. We also firmly condemn the unacceptable aggressive behaviour towards UNIFIL personnel and leadership recently observed.
We recall that peacekeepers must never be the target of attack and that attacks on them are prohibited while they enjoy protection under international law and relevant UN Security Council resolutions, and may constitute a war crime. The safety and security of UN peacekeepers is non-negotiable, and we urge the UN and the Security Council to exert all tools available at its disposal to strengthen the protection of UN peacekeepers in an increasingly dangerous environment.
We reaffirm our full support for UNIFIL and its mandate, as set out in relevant Security Council resolutions, and urge all parties, under all circumstances, to take all measures to ensure the safety and security of peacekeeping personnel and premises, in accordance with international law.
We call on the UN to continue investigating all attacks against peacekeepers in a prompt, transparent and comprehensive manner, and keep the relevant troop-contributing country informed of the progress, consistent with Security Council resolutions 2518 (2020) and 2589 (2021). Those responsible for these attacks must be held accountable.
We express deep concerns over the humanitarian situation in Lebanon, especially the significant civilian casualties, the extensive destruction of civilian infrastructure and the mass displacement of more than one million people.
We call on parties to urgently return to the cessation of hostilities arrangement of 2024 and respect the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006). We call for a cessation of hostilities in Lebanon, de-escalation of tensions, and for all parties to return to the negotiating table. We reiterate our strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity of Lebanon.
We pay tribute to the dedication and service of all United Nations peacekeepers who risk their lives in the cause of international peace and security and express our deep appreciation to all troop-contributing countries.
While reaffirming their full support for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), the countries urged the U.N. and its Security Council „to strengthen the protection of U.N. peacekeepers in an increasingly dangerous environment.“
The statement called on all parties to return to negotiations and reiterated „strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity of Lebanon.“
Hadi said there were indications that more countries would sign the statement. Israel, Lebanon and the U.S. were not among those he read out.
Production Date
07 Apr 2026
Video Length
02:51:06
Audio Language
Arabic
Chinese
English
French
Russian
Spanish
Original
The draft resolution prepared by Bahrain and supported by the United States received 11 votes in favor, two against and two abstentions.
(…)
In 2011, NATO obtained the green light to intervene in Libya when Russia abstained from a vote. Moscow later fumed that this had led to the fall of Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
In his post in Arabic, he implored regional leaders to take immediate diplomatic action. „Please, once again, do everything in your power before this madman turns the region into a ball of fire,“ the former IAEA chief wrote, directing his remarks at the neighbouring Gulf states.
The warning follows a sharp pivot in Washington‘s rhetoric, where Trump threatened the destruction of essential Iranian infrastructure and the forced reopening of the Strait of Hormuz if a peace agreement is not reached within the specified deadline.
ElBaradei also questioned the role of international institutions in preventing an all-out war. In a separate post written in English and addressed to the United Nations, he asked if „nothing can be done to stop this madness?“
The actual vote on the resolution, which was drafted by Bahrain with the support of the Arab countries in the Persian Gulf, is expected to be scheduled for Friday. But it remained unclear whether extra hours of diplomacy would bring the three veto-holding countries on board.
Russia, China and France are among the five permanent members of the council with veto power. There were also divisions over the resolution among the 10 nonpermanent members, according to diplomats.
Arab nations, led by Bahrain, seeking UN Security Council authorisation for military intervention to reopen the Strait of Hormuz have faced a major setback as Russia, China and France vetoed the proposed resolution.
The strategic Strait of Hormuz—through which approximately 20 per cent of the world’s oil and gas supplies transit—was closed by Iran on 28 February 2026 amid escalating conflict with the United States and Israel.
The initial draft, seen by The National, explicitly cited Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which grants the Security Council authority to impose measures ranging from sanctions to military action.
Speaking during an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council, Indonesia’s representative to the U.N., Omar Hadi, said: “We demand a direct investigation by the United Nations, not merely Israeli excuses.”
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of members of the Renewed United Nations, when peaceful solutions to the conflict, leading to freedom, personal responsibility, self-determination, increased prosperity and further implemenations of fundamental rights and freedoms for the population of the territory are simultaneously proposed or put into effect.
Consistent with UNSC Resolution 2817, we emphasise that such interference with international shipping and the disruption of global energy supply chains constitute a threat to international peace and security.
Yes, but: France, Germany, Italy and Japan have previously all publicly ruled out sending naval vessels to the strait during the war.
Mar 11, 2026 #UNSecurityCouncil #MiddleEastCrisis #IsraelLebanon
Amir‑Saeid Iravani, Ambassador of Iran to the United Nations, delivered remarks during a session of the United Nations Security Council at UN headquarters in New York City addressing the escalating situation in the Middle East. Iran’s envoy condemned military strikes against Iran and warned that continued aggression threatens regional and global stability. He urged the international community to uphold international law and the UN Charter while emphasizing that Iran will defend its sovereignty and people if attacks continue. Iran’s delegation also called for diplomatic efforts to prevent further escalation and protect civilians across the region.
“Accordingly, we do not recognize the Council’s action today. We consider it unjust and unlawful, inconsistent with the United Nations Charter and international law, and an action that completely disregards the established principles governing the determination of acts of aggression and breaches of the peace,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Iranian envoy blasted the Security Council members that voted in favor of the resolution, particularly the European ones, saying they have demonstrated that their claims of defending the UN Charter and international law are nothing more than empty words.
“Their hypocritical and irresponsible conduct once again demonstrates that political considerations take precedence over their professed commitment to international law and the UN Charter,” he noted.
Thirteen members of the UNSC voted in favor while the two remaining members – Russia and China – abstained.
(22. März 2011)
Am 19.März, dem Tag des Angriffs von Frankreich, Großbritannien, Kanada, Italien und den USA auf Libyen, wurde in Moskau eine der erbärmlichsten Erklärungen in der russischen Geschichte veröffentlicht (Angriffskrieg gegen Libyen beginnt: Ticker). Das russische Außenministerium von Sergei Lawrow:
“In Moskau bedauern wir diese bewaffnete Intervention im Rahmen der UN Resolution 1973, die hastig beschlossen wurde.”
Die Weltöffentlichkeit konstatiert: Russlands Staatsführung ist ein Haufen Tölpel, dem – wenn er schon nicht lesen kann und deshalb nicht weiss was vor sich geht – selbst das Wort „Veto“ mit einem einfachen Armhochhalten schon zu viel ist. Das Gleiche gilt für die Atomschwachmacht China, deren leseunkundige kommunistische Staatspartei immerhin 1.3 Milliarden Menschen herumkommandiert. In der Parteizeitung „People´s Daily“ redete man sich heute nun selbst in ein Gewissen, was man nicht hat (1):
„Die blutgetränkten Gewitter, denen Irak seit acht Jahren unterzogen wurde und das unaussprechliche Leiden seines Volkes sind ein Spiegel und eine Warnung. Die militärischen Attacken auf Libyen, folgend den Kriegen in Afghanisten und Irak, sind das das dritte Mal, dass einige Länder bewaffnete Aktionen gegen souveräne Staaten gestartet haben. Es sollte augenscheinlich sein, dass jedes Mal, wenn militärische Mittel benutzt werden um Krisen zu begegnen, dies ein Schlag gegen die Charta der Vereinten Nationen und die Regeln der internationalen Beziehungen sind.“
Die Weltöffentlichkeit versteht: früher hiess es in China „Bombardiert das Hauptquartier“, letzten Freitag hiess es „Bombardiert Libyen“ und heute wieder anders herum. Mal sehen, zu was sich Chinas Staatsführung am Donnerstag entscheidet. Vielleicht der Einfachheit halber zu „Bombardiert irgendwas“.