🌍 “An Army of Humanity”: Precisely How Colombia's President Says the UN Could Protect Palestine

Watch the clip below. Petro says a two-thirds UN General Assembly vote could launch a protection force.

Sep 29, 2025

✊🏽 Family — before we begin

This work only survives because you sustain it. No ads. No billionaire owners. We’re at 2,908 members on our march to 3,000 with 2 days to go — that’s about 46 people a day. If you value Gaza-first reporting that can’t be quietly erased tomorrow, please become a member (monthly, annual, or founding). Your support keeps these posts free for everyone who needs them.

I want you to watch the short clip above. It’s Colombian President Gustavo Petro, answering a blunt question in New York before flying home:

How could an “international army to liberate Palestine” be created?

According to on-scene reporting summarized by

Drop Site News

(crediting A.B. Youssef and Jude Finkelberg), Petro’s answer was direct and I will explain more about what he means below. He said that creating the international army could be done “quite easily” through the United Nations General Assembly with a vote getting a 2/3rds majority under the United for Peace clause in the UN that he wants to introduce in order to create an “army of humanity” that is bigger and more powerful than what Israel and America currently have.

That’s not just rhetoric. It’s a plan to move when the Security Council won’t.

What Petro is proposing — in plain terms

Use “Uniting for Peace.” When vetoes paralyze the Security Council, the General Assembly can convene an Emergency Special Session and, by two-thirds vote, recommend collective measures — up to and including armed protection to restore peace.
Assemble an “army of humanity.” Not a single nation’s invasion, but a multinational protection force built to shield civilians and force real negotiations.
Pair force with pressure. Petro is explicit that sanctions and follow-on Assembly action should accompany the force to compel talks that cannot be ignored.

Why this matters

Because the veto has swallowed the truth. Because we’ve watched levelled cities, starvation, and mass surveillance get laundered as “security” while the world is told to wait. Petro’s point is simple: the General Assembly is not powerless. It can call the world’s bluff — publicly — and demand that nations take collective measures to protect civilians now.

Moral core: If the UN cannot protect a people facing extermination, the UN is theater.

What “Uniting for Peace” actually is

In 1950, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 377 (V) — the “Uniting for Peace” resolution — by 52–5 (2 abstentions). It says that when the Security Council is paralyzed by a P5 veto, the Assembly shall take up the matter immediately and may issue recommendations for collective measures — including, when necessary, the use of armed force to maintain or restore international peace and security. To move quickly, 377 created the Emergency Special Session mechanism, which can be convened within 24 hours when the Council is deadlocked.

It has been used before — even to put forces in the field

Since 1951, the UN has invoked 377 more than a dozen times, most through Emergency Special Sessions. In 1956 (Suez), after France and the UK vetoed Council action, the Assembly established the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF I) to secure a ceasefire and supervise withdrawal — a protection force born of a GA vote, not a Council mandate. The Assembly has also used 377 on Palestine (1980 & 1997), Afghanistan (1980), and Namibia (1981) to drive sanctions, withdrawals, and accountability, and most recently convened an ESS on Ukraine (2022). Petro’s proposal isn’t a fantasy; it’s a return to a tool the UN has already used — including against powerful states — when the Council wouldn’t act.

The legal footing: recommendation, not paralysis

It’s true the Assembly recommends rather than “authorizes” under Chapter VII — but the International Court of Justice has repeatedly recognized the Assembly’s role (e.g., Certain Expenses, 1962; Namibia, 1971; Wall, 2004). Practice shows that a two-thirds GA vote creates real legal-political legitimacy: it can mobilize sanctions, convene Emergency Sessions on demand, and mandate UN forces or invite coalitions to act under a UN banner when the Council fails. In plain English: a GA supermajority can surmount a veto’s political effect, put the weight of the UN behind a civilian-protection mission, and force negotiations in the open.

Objection & Answer (A new way for me to answer criticisms that may come)

Objection: The General Assembly can’t “authorize” force — only the Security Council can.
Answer: Correct in the narrow Chapter VII sense — but Uniting for Peace (GA 377A(V)) exists for Council deadlock. The Assembly can recommend collective measures (including armed protection), establish UN forces (as it did with UNEF I), and trigger sanctions and sustained Assembly action that change the political terrain.
What the evidence shows: A two-thirds GA vote doesn’t need the Council’s blessing to exert decisive pressure, create a legitimate UN umbrella, and invite states to step forward into a civilian-protection mission with clear rules.

What would make this credible

The mission has to be narrow and human-centred in order to get the votes: protect civilians, open crossings, secure aid routes, and stop bombardment of hospitals and shelters. Command and rules of engagement must be crystal clear, with human-rights monitoring baked in. Regional participation should be paired with Global South and European contributors bringing logistics, medevac, engineering, and air-lift — not just flags. And sanctions and accountability must move in parallelso negotiations are real, not theater.

What I’m asking of you, right now

If you believe the UN should be more than a podium, help keep this work public. We’re at 2,908 / 3,000 — 2 days left • ≈46/day. When we cross 3,000, we’ll sprint toward 5,000 by Dec 31 so this platform stays free, fearless, and impossible to silence.
👉 Become a member today — and if you can’t join now, forward this to three people who care about real protection, not pageantry.