NEW YORK — In a stunning development that has left diplomats scratching their heads, the United Nations Security Council has announced it will no longer accept formal voting resolutions unless all 15 member states can “feel” they’re in consensus.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres, speaking from his office overlooking the frozen East River (though technically it’s just a building, never mind), confirmed the new “emotional resonance” requirement. “The Council has always operated on paper, but now we’re bringing the human element back,” he said. “Voting is no longer just about what’s written in a resolution, but what your colleagues feel you’re feeling when you walk into the room.”

The new protocol requires a 72-hour “feeling period” before any formal vote. During this time, diplomats must submit detailed mood logs to their permanent representatives. A recent memo from the UN Protocol Office read, “If your colleague’s last emotional state was ‘cautious optimism,’ you may not proceed with a ‘strong concern’ resolution.”

The strangest part? The UN’s new AI system can now detect “emotional dissonance” during meetings. If two countries are verbally in agreement but the AI senses their micro-expressions don’t match, the resolution is automatically flagged for “emotional reconciliation.”

Diplomats from smaller nations, particularly those whose Permanent Representative offices operate on three-hour time zones and nap through meetings, are already protesting. “We’re trying to vote on a resolution about clean water in Yemen,” explained a weary representative from the Caribbean. “And now I have to wait three weeks for my boss to confirm I’m not ‘angry enough’ to sign it? This is bureaucratic insanity!”

The protocol came after a series of high-profile failures, including:

  • A resolution on the Middle East that was blocked because two ambassadors were too nervous to make eye contact
  • A climate summit resolution rejected after one delegate’s cat meowed during the vote
  • A food security initiative stalled after diplomats complained about “offensive cologne” during negotiations

UN Legal Affairs spokesperson Maria Santos defended the move: “The Security Council has always been about building relationships. Now we’re just making sure those relationships are felt as well as written.”

Critics say this undermines the very purpose of international law. “If we’re all too emotional to agree on anything,” asked one diplomat who asked to speak on condition of anonymity, “then we’re better off just going home and drinking wine.”

But there’s hope. Earlier this week, two Caribbean diplomats reportedly “faked” agreement using a pre-written mood log, then celebrated afterward with the UN’s new approval. “It’s about finding the right emotional rhythm,” Santos said. “If you can convince your colleagues you’re not too angry, too scared, too confused, you can get anything approved.”

For now, the UN Council chamber remains tense. New diplomatic bags are being checked for “emotional compliance” before being accepted into meetings. And somewhere, a UN official is nervously wondering if their emotional state will affect their ability to vote on the Strait of Hormuz.

As one observer put it, “International politics has always been about emotions. Now they’re just making it official.”

The debate over how much emotional consensus should be required continues. But if there’s one thing this crisis has taught us, it’s that even in the most formal of institutions, emotions can break through. The question now is: will they, or will the UN just keep blocking resolutions until we all agree to feel the same way?