Clarification about
United Nations resolutions
Security Council
General Assembly
The main reason is the presence of the United States as a permanent member state that obstructs Security Council resolutions by using its veto and double veto in dealing with substantive issues... in addition to the control of Jewish and Zionist institutions over many specialized agencies, especially in the issue of financing.
The UN tried to intervene by issuing a United Nations Security Council (UNSC)Resulotion, but the US vetoed it, as it is one of the 5 permanent members of the UNSC.
UN can condemn action and call for peacefully solution but it can't do much more than that. Even if there is a violation of human rights in this conflict UN can't do anything can only condemn it as even UDHR is not legally binding. And by any chance UN does try to do intervene USA the close ally of Israel will interfere with its veto power.UN is outdated and need serious reform to actually intervene in international matter.
As pointed out by several answers, the UN as an organization can do little to end the occupation, either the current one in Gaza or the preexisting in the West Bank. The issue is not just passing a UN security council resolution (UNSCR), it is the "muscle" behind it. That is, without member states support, UNSCR are seldom coming into force. We can just remember the long time that passed between UNSCR 435 on the independence on Namibia (1978) and the actual event, 1989, just because there was no support from the US, UK and France to end the South African apartheid regime administration of Namibia without a corresponding end of support from the Cubans to neighboring Angola. In this case, as in other conflicts legacy from the Cold War, the UN role was facilitated not only by "detente" between the superpowers (US and USSR) , but also because the conflict resolution fitted the terms of the only remaining superpower of the time (the US), ando both the US and the USSR did not content themselves with passing th resolution, but they put diplomatic muscle - and economic after it. So, the US could even dare to avoid using the veto and simply refraining from doing anything beyond rethoric. This does not mean that I think the US will not use its veto.
The UN may have a role at the time both sides feel that is better to end the current episode of warfare, as it has happened in Lebanon twice. UNIFIL was set up to try to freeze a warfighting situation threatening to escalate in the superpower struggle at the end of the seventies, and its mandate was revamped and its troops reinforced after the 2005 - 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, only because it was deemed a good scheme to blur an Israelian military fiasco. Now the stakes are in the war, so I see very little room for the UN other than trying to keep the population in Gaza alive. I am sorry to say so.
Unfortunately, the United Nations is designed and maintained by five powerful international countries. It can only have an impact on international events when the common interests of the 5 countries require it, and otherwise, it is neutral when the interests of the 5 countries conflict. And it cannot be effective. A way to redesign the United Nations should be thought of.
Here are my two cents.
As background, for the last 12 years, I have directed Drew University's Semester on the United Nations. We have a classroom at the UN's headquarters in New York City, where I spend most of my fall semesters.
In terms of the UN Security Council, Behrooz Khadem and Miguel Angel Guil García said it best. But I will add that the designers of the UN wanted the Council to keep the great powers of the time, today's Permanent 5, diplomatically engaged with each other and to use international institutions to pursue its diplomatic strategies. Even when they are at odds as they have been in the situations in Palestine, Syria, Myanmar, Ukraine, and so forth, the P5 have been in constant dialogue, establishing red lines, and working to prevent the spread of these crises. As David Bosco notes in his research the Council operates as a concert, similar to the Concert of Europe established after the Napoleonic Wars. The goal is to promote harmony as a way of preventing a great power war.
The US, wrongly I believe, vetoed the resolution penned by Brazil three weeks ago, as Georgios Koukakis noted. But note the text did not call for a cessation of hostilities. It promoted a humanitarian pause. So even if adopted, it would not have stopped the fighting.
Today, the Biden administration is calling on Israel to pause the fighting for a few days to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza. The Israeli government has so far denied the request. President Biden thought that by siding with Israel after the October 7 attacks, he could shape Israeli reactions to the conflict. This was naive and he should have learned something from past presidents.
In 2009, the Bush administration abstained on a resolution, adopted on January 8 before President Obama took office, demanding a cessation of hostilities in Gaza, after Israel's attacks on the territory. The abstention was a signal to Israel that its actions were not in line with US interests, forcing a shift in Israeli strategy. The crisis was contained but not resolved.
Even if the Council could address this crisis, there would be little political will to do so. Israel will not heed the Security Council's demands. Most Israelis - as a Pew Research poll showed recently - have little confidence in the UN. And the US, as Dina Mohammed Jabr Alrubaiy argues, will not allow the Security Council to establish a sanctions regime against Israel.
Going back to the issue of political will, the UN General Assembly could address this crisis and the 10th Emergency Special Session on Palestine (established in 1997) met three weeks ago and adopted a resolution that requested a ceasefire. These resolutions are not binding but it demonstrated that most states do not support Israeli action.
Also, the UN General Assembly could try to do more, if it wanted to. But alas political will is in short supply. For example, in 1948, the Assembly established UNTSO, which is based in Jerusalem. During the Korean crisis of the early 1950s, it acted to address the fighting. The General Assembly has the tools to play a bigger role if it wants to and the ESS provides it a mechanism that the US cannot block. But the world is not ready to move beyond words into action.
The UN Human Rights Council will not be able to play a constructive role. It is an important institution and its investigations will document serious human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law. But, its pronouncements will have little bearing on Israel's strategic calculus. Let's keep in mind that Israel has ratified many of the core UN human rights treaties and that it is a party to all major conventions on international humanitarian law. Thus, the Human Rights Council has a duty to investigate and report. And while Israel is not a member of the International Criminal Court, Palestine is, and thus the ICC has jurisdiction - just as it has jurisdiction in Ukraine.
In the UN system, Israel has been isolated for years. Thus, the UN's toolbox will have little effect on Israel's stance on the future of the Palestinian territories. This is where the US has to play a more constructive role. It has to pressure Israel to end the fighting and commit to some type of peace process. It will also require other nations to pressure Palestine to negotiate with Israel - which is difficult if not impossible given the existing circumstances in the occupied territories.
For now, the UN's leadership can criticize the parties to the conflict and demand an end to the fighting. Its different agencies will be involved in this crisis, providing humanitarian assistance (albeit limited given existing political limitations) and trying to further pressure Israel to end its reprisals.
Carlos L. Yordan The United Nations is a tool in the hands of the permanent members of the Security Council that have the right to veto, and therefore most of these countries, including the United States of America, Britain and France, support the (Israeli) entity because they are colonial countries. As for Russia, it benefits from this war because it ignores its crimes in Ukraine and not Love for Palestine and its support for the people of Gaza, and of course China always coordinates with Russia in UN decisions.
Ali Saadi Abdulzahra Jubeir - your assessment is right.
However, my point is that the Security Council, by design, cannot fulfill its mandate in terms of the Israeli-Palestinian or Arab-Israeli conflicts. As you rightly note, the United States will use its veto to shield Israel. I strongly think that the Biden administration should use the Council to send a strong message to Israel that it has to cease the hostilities, open the border for humanitarian assistance for Gaza, stop its reprisals in the West Bank, and make it clear that Israel cannot re-occupy Gaza.
Multiple news articles published in the last several days report that the White House is growing more concerned about Israel's policies. If the reporting is correct, it seems that Israel is disregarding the Biden administration's views.
As I noted before, President Biden was naive to travel to Israel after the October 7 attacks or to provide unconditional assistance to Israel. While the US should have acknowledged and strongly condemned the barbarity of Hamas's attacks on the Israeli population, it should have required Israel to temper its military response and engage in a political dialogue.
If the Israeli government is unwilling to heed the Biden administration's requests, then I think that the US should revisit the Brazilian draft resolution and call for a vote in the Security Council. This time it should support it. This will further isolate Israel and force a debate within Israel's unity government.
France and the United Kingdom have not used their veto since the early 1990s and they have been more critical of Israeli policies in the Palestinian-occupied territories since the days of the Oslo Accords. Today's UK government is more pro-Israel than past governments, but it will probably abstain in a controversial vote and vote with the US if it were to support a resolution. France has voted to criticize Israel in the Security Council at a very strong rate in the past 20 years.
And on Russia, you are 100% correct. This crisis has shifted attention from its own atrocities in Ukraine. But Russia is also concerned about the possibility this could turn into a wider regional conflict. Moscow has important interests in the region and it prefers to find ways to temper the flames.
China is the great unknown. While it has voted with Russia on Syria, China's growing influence in the region requires it to play a more constructive role. At this point, a wider conflict can have negative repercussions on the value of oil and trade routes in the region.
I think that China would welcome a resolution that finds a way to pressure Israel to cease hostilities. Beijing has taken an interest in the Middle East in the last years, fostering Saudi and Iranian diplomatic exchanges and talking more about Palestine's future.
Can a resolution pass the Security Council requiring a cease-fire? It is up to Washington at this time. If the Biden administration uses the Security Council to craft its diplomatic response - rather than using Secretary of State Blinken to deliver warnings to Israel - it will get the support of the other members of the Security Council. The Brazilian draft got 14 affirmative votes and 1 veto. It should serve as the foundation of a new resolution.
الأمم المتحدة مع الأسف منظمة منزوعة الإرادة فهي تمثل إرادة الاقوى، بسبب التنظيم الهيكلي للمنظمة وهنا أتحدث عن مجلس الأمن وضرورة الإصلاخ الهيكلي للمنظمة، وثانيا بسبب منطق العلاقات الدولية و الذي لا يعترف إلا بالقوة
You see, the United State is being very careful because of her interest not to be jeopardised and sour the symbiotic relation that existed between the duo.
The UN,which should be apolitical with a humanitarian arm to reach out to countries in need,seems to be a toothless bull dog in the aforementioned crises. The secretary general and other well meaning members did their best to bring a respite to no avail. Israel seems to be above the law and most disturbing is the UN and it's agencies are selective rather than a unifying force for the world.
Hauwa Wambai Aminu
This did not occur spontaneously. In the current conflict and its immediate provocation, Israel's objective appears justified. At issue is the collateral damage of humanitarian crisis. Hamas certainly shares, some see "owns", blame both for Israel's predictable response to 10/7 atrocities and Hamas continued use of Gaza civilians as cover.
Law? Clearly Hamas per State of Palestine is in violation per 10/7. Israel's immediate objective is not and the humanitarian elements are arguable.
https://www.cfr.org/article/what-international-law-has-say-about-israel-hamas-war
What "respite" do you mean?
Dear Ali Saadi Abdulzahra Jubeir
I think that your question and answer may suggest that the foundations of the United Nations system became discredited.
best regards,
kamil.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science
- Materials Chemistry
- Polymer Chemistry