There is no doubt that the presence and decisive intervention of the UN in different crises has meant a difference for many people around the world, by acting as a mechanism of containment or dissuasion, depending on the case. This study acknowledges the full half of the glass but raises the need to point out the empty half as it also has consequences for people’s lives.
In the first decade of the 21st century, during the final phase of the war in Sri Lanka, crimes against humanity were committed with the silent complicity of the UN in the country, leading Secretary General (SG) Ban Ki-moon to appoint a panel of experts to review the situation.
The tragedy happened again years later in Myanmar, where the UN failed to protect the Rohingya population from genocide and secretary general Antonio Guterres commissioned a new study.
In both cases, the independent studies reached several lessons and recommendations. However, when examining the UN’s performance in the case of Venezuela, it is observed that similar mistakes have been repeated, which shows that the recommendations were not fully implemented and that the lessons have not been learned.
The approach of the United Nations system to the crisis in Venezuela bears similarities to the aforementioned cases, but it also has particularities, which are analyzed in this study.