resolution

US Under Fire for Downplaying Security Council Resolution as ‘Nonbinding’

Spread the love

Oriignal article by JAKE JOHNSON republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller speaks to reporters during a press briefing on March 25, 2024. 
(Photo: Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images)

One expert accused the U.S. of working to “undermine and sabotage the U.N. Security Council, the ‘rules-based order,’ and international law.”

Biden administration officials attempted Monday to downplay the significance of a newly passed United Nations Security Council resolution, drawing ire from human rights advocates who said the U.S. is undercutting international law and stonewalling attempts to bring Israel’s devastating military assault on Gaza to an end.

The resolution “demands an immediate cease-fire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties, leading to a lasting sustainable cease-fire.” The U.S., which previously vetoed several cease-fire resolutions, opted to abstain on Monday, allowing the measure to pass.

Shortly after the resolution’s approval, several administration officials—including State Department spokesman Matthew Miller, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield—falsely characterized the measure as “nonbinding.”

“It’s a nonbinding resolution,” Kirby told reporters. “So, there’s no impact at all on Israel and Israel’s ability to continue to go after Hamas.”

Josh Ruebner, an adjunct lecturer at Georgetown University and former policy director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, wrote in response that “there is no such thing as a ‘nonbinding’ Security Council resolution.”

“Israel’s failure to abide by this resolution must open the door to the immediate imposition of Chapter VII sanctions,” Ruebner wrote.

Beatrice Fihn, the director of Lex International and former executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, condemned what she called the Biden administration’s “appalling behavior” in the wake of the resolution’s passage. Fihn said the administration’s downplaying of the resolution shows how the U.S. works to “openly undermine and sabotage the U.N. Security Council, the ‘rules-based order,’ and international law.”

In a Monday op-ed for Common Dreams, Phyllis Bennis, a senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, warned that administration officials’ claim that the resolution was “nonbinding” should be seen as “setting the stage for the U.S. government to violate the U.N. Charter by refusing to be bound by the resolution’s terms.”

While all U.N. Security Council resolutions are legally binding, they’re difficult to enforce and regularly ignored by the Israeli government, which responded with outrage to the latest resolution and canceled an Israeli delegation’s planned visit to the U.S.

Israel Katz, Israel’s foreign minister, wrote on social media Monday that “Israel will not cease fire.”

The resolution passed amid growing global alarm over the humanitarian crisis that Israel has inflicted on the Gaza Strip, where most of the population of around 2.2 million is displaced and at increasingly dire risk of starvation.

Amnesty International secretary-general Agnes Callamard said Monday that it was “just plain irresponsible” of U.S. officials to “suggest that a resolution meant to save lives and address massive devastation and suffering can be disregarded.”

In addition to demanding an immediate cease-fire, the Security Council resolution calls for the unconditional release of all remaining hostages and “emphasizes the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance.”

Israel has systematically obstructed aid deliveries to Gaza, including U.S.-funded flour shipments.

Farhan Haq, deputy spokesman for the U.N. secretary-general, stressed during a briefing Monday that “all the resolutions of the Security Council are international law.”

“They are as binding as international laws,” Haq said.

Oriignal article by JAKE JOHNSON republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

12 Palestinians Drown Trying to Retrieve Airdropped Gaza Aid From Sea

‘Crucial’ UN Report on Gaza Genocide Must Spur Global Action, Says Amnesty

Sanders Rips ‘Absurd’ US Claim That Israel Is Not Violating International Law

Continue ReadingUS Under Fire for Downplaying Security Council Resolution as ‘Nonbinding’

UN Security Council’s Gaza Cease-Fire Resolution Is Not Enough—But It’s a Start

Spread the love

Original article by PHYLLIS BENNIS republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield raises her hand during the UN Security Council meeting which adopted a resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in Gaza Strip for the month of Ramada on March 25, 2024. As many as 14 countries voted in favor of the resolution, presented by 10 elected members of the Council, while the US abstained from voting.  (Photo by Fatih Aktas/Anadolu via Getty Images

Despite weaknesses and false U.S. claims that the resolution is nonbinding, it demands an end to the bombing and a massive influx of humanitarian aid. And that means the possibility of saving lives.

Five and half months into Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza with more than 32,000 Palestinians already killed, six weeks after the International Court of Justice found Israel plausibly committing genocide and ordered it to stop, and after four earlier tries, the UN Security Council on Monday finally passed a resolution submitted by all ten elected members aiming to stop the slaughter. The resolution has lots of weaknesses and shows the effects of U.S. pressure—but it demands an end to the bombing and a massive influx of food and medicine. And that means the possibility of saving lives.

The resolution demanded an immediate ceasefire leading to a lasting and sustainable ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and compliance with international law in treatment of all those detained. The Council also demanded “the lifting of all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale,” reminding the world of the need for massive expansion of that aid and for protection of Palestinian civilians across the entire Gaza Strip.

The resolution’s passage was uncertain until the very last moment. An hour before the vote, U.S. diplomats won a final concession—replacing the original demand for a “permanent” ceasefire” to the squishier, less clear “lasting.” And there are significant other weaknesses in the resolution.

When U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield claimed that the Council vote was “nonbinding,” she was setting the stage for the U.S. government to violate the UN Charter by refusing to be bound by the resolution’s terms.

The most important flaw in the Council’s text is that it calls for a ceasefire only “for the month of Ramadan.” This most important of Muslim holidays began on March 11, so the demand for a ceasefire is only for about two weeks. And while it does demand that the immediate halt lead to a lasting ceasefire, two weeks is still a much too-short time.

Other problems reflect deliberate obfuscation of language. The demand that all parties treat “all persons they detain” in compliance with international law clearly refers to the thousands of Palestinian detainees Israel is holding, many in administration detention without even the pretense of legitimate legal procedures, whom international law requires to be immediately released. Their detention violates a host of those laws, but by not naming them directly, diplomatic wrangling always threatens to deny them their rights.

And in the paragraph focusing on the catastrophic humanitarian situation across Gaza, the Council’s demand for “lifting all barriers to provision of humanitarian aid at scale” should be a clear and straightforward message to Israel that it must open the gates, end its rejection of goods on the spurious grounds of potential “dual use,” replace its deliberately complex and time-consuming inspection processes and more. But that reference to “lifting all barriers” is hidden in a long sentence within a reference to an earlier resolution. The first part of the sentence merely “emphasizes” the need for more humanitarian aid and protection for Palestinian civilians. And in UN diplo-speak, especially in the Security Council that actually has the right to enforce its resolutions, “emphasizing” something ain’t even close to “demanding” that it happen.

Israel was still not pleased, of course. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately announced his delegation, expected in Washington tomorrow to discuss Tel Aviv’s planned escalation against Rafah, will stay home instead.

But even if the resolution is not all it should be, its passage (14 in favor, the U.S. abstained) still represents a powerful global rejection of the U.S.-backed Israeli assault against Palestinians in Gaza, and an important expression of support for the South African-led intervention at the International Court of Justice designed to prevent or stop Israeli genocide and to hold Israel accountable for its crimes. Importantly, and despite U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield’s false claim following the vote, all decisions of the Council, as stated in Article 25 of the UN Charter, are binding on Member States.

That puts a big obligation on the U.S. and global movements for ceasefire, massive escalation of humanitarian aid, and resumption of funding UNRWA. Left to its own devices, the Council will almost never move to enforce its own decisions. That responsibility, that obligation, lies with our movements—and, in the UN context, with the General Assembly. The legacy of the South Africa anti-apartheid movement, especially through the 1970s and 80s, and into the early 1990s, shows that model. The U.S. and Britain over and over again vetoed resolutions in the Security Council for sanctions against apartheid South Africa. Over and over again the General Assembly passed the resolutions—for banking, trade, and other sanctions, for arms embargoes and much more. Eventually, public pressure against Washington and London forced a pull-back, and eventually, reluctantly and grudgingly, those governments gave in, stopped vetoing the Council resolutions and started abiding by the calls of the Assembly. It all played a huge role in ending South African apartheid.

Left to its own devices, the Council will almost never move to enforce its own decisions. That responsibility, that obligation, lies with our movements—and, in the UN context, with the General Assembly.

When U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield claimed that the Council vote was “nonbinding,” she was setting the stage for the U.S. government to violate the UN Charter by refusing to be bound by the resolution’s terms. But enforcement of Council decisions can take shape in many forms—protest movements around the world can demand their governments move to pressure Israel to abide by the Council’s demands. The General Assembly can urge Member States to impose some of those same sanctions it used so successfully against apartheid South Africa. Maybe the Assembly and global movements together can escalate the call urging boycotts of Israeli products, divestment from companies profiting from Israel’s occupation or apartheid, and sanctions on banking transactions or trade, and the imposition of arms embargoes.

First things, of course, an immediate ceasefire, release of hostages and Palestinian detainees, and a flood of emergency humanitarian aid. Then maybe, just maybe, we’ll see this Security Council resolution lead to the United Nations joining the global BDS movement. It’s never too late.


Phyllis Bennis

Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and serves on the national board of Jewish Voice for Peace. Her most recent book is the 7th updated edition of “Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer” (2018). Her other books include: “Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer” (2008) and “Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power” (2005).

Original article by PHYLLIS BENNIS republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Continue ReadingUN Security Council’s Gaza Cease-Fire Resolution Is Not Enough—But It’s a Start

Russia and China veto US resolution on Gaza over failure to explicitly demand ceasefire

Spread the love

Original article by Tanupriya Singh republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

UNSC. Photo: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

As Israel prepares for a ground invasion of Rafah, the US-authored resolution presented to the UN Security Council merely noted an “imperative” for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Algeria, Russia, and China rejected the resolution, stating that it had failed to deliver on the core demand for a ceasefire.

Russia and China vetoed a US-authored resolution in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on March 22 on the situation in Gaza. The text “determines the imperative for an immediate and sustained ceasefire” stopping short of an explicit call for a halt to Israel’s six-month long attack on besieged Gaza that has killed almost 32,000 Palestinians.

The US authored the resolution after vetoing three successive UNSC resolutions on Gaza, including a February 20 resolution presented by Algeria that had called for an immediate ceasefire.

Absent an explicit call for a ceasefire, the text presented by the US mentioned allowing for the delivery of essential humanitarian assistance, “alleviate humanitarian suffering and towards that end unequivocally supports ongoing international diplomatic efforts to secure such a cease-fire in connection [emphasis added] with the release of all remaining hostages,” according to a draft circulated in the news media on Thursday.

This unilateral demand for the release of Israeli hostages—without a mention of a reciprocal release of the thousands of Palestinians Israel has imprisoned and tortured— has been inserted by the US in UNSC discussions of a ceasefire. This is all while Israel has continued to bomb Gaza and rejected comprehensive ceasefire proposals presented by the Palestinian resistance. Friday’s vote in the Security Council was held amid ongoing negotiations in Qatar.

The US continued to make this link perhaps not “as firmly”, during the Council on Friday, with Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield speaking of an “immediate and sustained ceasefire as part of a deal that leads to the release of all hostages being held by Hamas and other groups that will help us address the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza”. She added that adopting the resolution would “put pressure on Hamas to accept the deal on the table”. 

The US resolution received 11 votes in favor, and three votes against, with Algeria joining Russia and China who cast the deciding vetoes. Guyana was the sole abstention, reiterating the lack of a call for an immediate ceasefire.

US resolution a “hypocritical spectacle”

Addressing the Council ahead of the vote, Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia accused the US of presenting a “hypocritical spectacle” wrapped up in a ceasefire, that the US had been trying to “sell a product” to the international community. He added that the language of an “imperative” was not enough to save the lives of the Palestinians and was not stipulated in the mandate of the UNSC, which is vested with a mechanism to “demand a ceasefire and where necessary, to compel compliance”.

“The American product is exceedingly politicized, the sole purpose of which is to help to play to the voters, to throw them a bone in the form of some kind of a mention of a ceasefire in Gaza” and would make the UNSC “instrument in the advancement of Washington’s destructive policy in the Middle East”, and “to ensure the impunity of Israel whose crimes in the draft are not even assessed.”

“The US draft contains an effective green light for Israel to mount a military operation in Rafah”, adding that the text’s authors had tried to make it that “nothing would prevent” Israel from “continuing their brutal cleansing of the south of the Gaza Strip”.

Algerian Ambassador Amar Bendjama stated that the adoption of the February ceasefire resolution could have saved thousands of lives, adding that the present resolution had fallen short “due to the absence of a clear demand for a ceasefire those who believe that the Israeli occupying power will choose to uphold its international legal obligation are mistaken, they must abandon this fiction”.

He stated that the US draft resolution had been circulated a month ago following which Algeria had made proposed edits to “achieve a more balanced and acceptable text”, however, finally, the draft fell short as “core concerns remained unaddressed”.

Addressing the Council on Friday, China’s Ambassador Zhang Jun explained the country’s veto, stating that despite the urgent need and demand for an immediate, unconditional, and sustained ceasefire, “the Council had dragged its feet and wasted too much time”.

He added that the US-authored draft had “always evaded and dodged the most central issue- that of a ceasefire. The final text remains ambiguous and does not call for an immediate ceasefire, nor does it even provide an answer to the question of realizing a ceasefire in the short-term”.

Zhang further stated that an immediate ceasefire was a “fundamental prerequisite” for “saving lives, expanding humanitarian access and preventing greater conflicts. The US draft on the contrary sets up preconditions for a ceasefire which is no different from giving a green light to continued killings which is unacceptable.”

He noted that the draft was “very imbalanced” particularly in regard to Israel’s plans to invade Rafah. “The draft does not clearly and unequivocally state its opposition which would send an utterly wrong signal and lead to severe consequences.”

His Algerian counterpart, Bendjama, had similarly stated that the text “does not convey a clear message of peace. It tacitly allows continuing civilian casualties and lacks clear safeguards to prevent further escalation. It is a laissez-passer to continue killing the Palestinian civilians. The emphasis on ‘measures to reduce civilian harm from ongoing and future operations’ implies a license for continuing bloodshed,” Bendjama added, highlighting Israel’s looming invasion of Rafah.

Rafah invasion still on the table despite international outcry

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reiterated the Occupation’s plan to launch a ground invasion of Rafah in southern Gaza, where 1.5 million people forcibly displaced by Israeli attacks on other parts of Gaza are currently trapped.

While the US continues to make a display of its supposed efforts to halt the looming invasion, Netanyahu has declared that Israel is “rejecting” growing international pressure “in order to achieve the goals of the war”. Following a phone call with President Joe Biden, Netanyahu stated that he “made it as clear as possible” that there was no way around a ground incursion.

“We see no way to eliminate Hamas militarily without destroying these remaining battalions. We are determined to do this”, he said. Netanyahu reiterated this in a meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, saying on Friday, “I told him that I hope we will do it with the support of the US, but if we have to— we will do it alone”.

“A major military ground operation is not the way to do it”, Blinken told reporters, then going on to say, “We’re determined that Israel succeed in defending itself and becomes integrated into the region with its security.”

Meanwhile, the ten elected, non-permanent members (E-10) of the Security Council have drafted a separate resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, “leading to a permanent sustainable ceasefire”.

It also demands “the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages”, without linking it to the ceasefire, and stresses the need to protect civilians in Gaza and provide humanitarian assistance. France has also stated that it will be drafting a separate resolution.

A vote on the E-10 text is reportedly expected to take place later on Friday or Saturday morning.

Original article by Tanupriya Singh republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

Continue ReadingRussia and China veto US resolution on Gaza over failure to explicitly demand ceasefire

‘Disgraceful’: US Abstains After Watering Down UN Gaza Resolution

Spread the love

Original article by Brett Wilkins republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

U.S. United Nations Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield abstains during a vote on a Security Council resolution on Gaza, on December 22, 2023 in New York. (Photo: Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images)

“Given the staggering death toll—with more than 20,000 killed in over two months—and the horrifying scale of destruction and devastation in Gaza, this is simply unacceptable,” said the head of Amnesty International.

The United States on Friday abstained from voting on a U.N. Security Council resolution that it repeatedly stonewalled and lobbied to weaken in the face of intense international opposition as Israeli forces continue to kill hundreds of Palestinians daily.

The newly passed resolution—which was introduced by the United Arab Emirates—calls for “urgent and extended humanitarian pauses and corridors throughout the Gaza Strip for a sufficient number of days to enable full, rapid, safe, and unhindered humanitarian access.”

Thirteen Security Council members voted in favor of the resolution. Russia joined the U.S. in abstaining.

The resolution calls for “urgent steps… for creating the conditions for a sustainable cessation of hostilities,” language that’s weaker than an earlier draft’s call for an “urgent and sustainable cessation of hostilities.”

“Biden’s changes will help ensure that Israel’s slaughter in Gaza continues while minimizing the U.N.’s insight into what increasingly appears to be a genocide.”

Also removed from the final version was language condemning Israel’s indiscriminate attacks on Palestinian civilians, tens of thousands of whom have been killed, wounded, or left missing during 77 days of Israeli onslaught.

The vote came just after Russia proposed an amendment that would have restored language calling for an “immediate cessation of hostilities” to the resolution. The U.S. vetoed the amendment.

Earlier this month, the U.S. vetoed a separate Security Council resolution calling for a Gaza cease-fire. That resolution was later approved by the U.N. General Assembly in a 153-10 vote.

“It is disgraceful that the U.S. was able to stall and use the threat of its veto power to force the U.N. Security Council to weaken a much-needed call for an immediate end to attacks by all parties,” Amnesty International secretary-general Agnès Callamard said in a statement.

“This is a much-needed resolution—all efforts to address the unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza must be welcomed—but it remains woefully insufficient in the face of the ongoing carnage and extensive destruction wrought by the government of Israel’s attacks in the occupied Gaza Strip,” Callamard continued. “Nothing short of an immediate cease-fire is enough to alleviate the mass civilian suffering we are witnessing.”

“Given the staggering death toll—with more than 20,000 killed in over two months—and the horrifying scale of destruction and devastation in Gaza, this is simply unacceptable,” she added.

In a statement giving a “qualified welcome” to the resolution, Mary Robinson—a former U.N. high commissioner for human rights and Irish president who currently chairs The Elders—said: “Agreement on this weak and overdue U.N. Security Council resolution is better than another U.S. veto. But the test of the resolution’s success will be how many lives are saved.”

“This is a much-needed resolution—all efforts to address the unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza must be welcomed—but it remains woefully insufficient in the face of the ongoing carnage and extensive destruction wrought by the government of Israel’s attacks in the occupied Gaza Strip,” Callamard continued. “Nothing short of an immediate cease-fire is enough to alleviate the mass civilian suffering we are witnessing.”

“Given the staggering death toll—with more than 20,000 killed in over two months—and the horrifying scale of destruction and devastation in Gaza, this is simply unacceptable,” she added.

In a statement giving a “qualified welcome” to the resolution, Mary Robinson—a former U.N. high commissioner for human rights and Irish president who currently chairs The Elders—said: “Agreement on this weak and overdue U.N. Security Council resolution is better than another U.S. veto. But the test of the resolution’s success will be how many lives are saved.”

Lamenting that the resolution “became increasingly meaningless” as U.S. President Joe Biden “managed to delete the call for suspension of hostilities,” Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said on social media Friday that “Biden’s changes will help ensure that Israel’s slaughter in Gaza continues while minimizing the U.N.’s insight into what increasingly appears to be a genocide.”

“Biden is effectively running war crimes management for Israel,” he added.

Original article by Brett Wilkins republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Comment by dizzy: The United States under President Biden has repeatedly succeeded in frustrating attempts to stop and has thereby facilitated Israel’s Fascist-like genocidal atrocities and war crimes in Gaza. We need to stop Israel’s war crimes and remove this ability from the United States at the UN Security Council.

Continue Reading‘Disgraceful’: US Abstains After Watering Down UN Gaza Resolution