Amid rising civilian casualties in the Israel-Hamas war and the catastrophe in the Gaza Strip, the United States on Tuesday vetoed a United Nations General Assembly resolution authorizing an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, causing worldwide outrage and condemnation.
Earlier on Friday, the US also casted the dissenting vote against a propose UN Security Council resolution on the same matter to the chagrin of the international community which is desirous of an end to the conflict.
During Tuesday’s vote In New York, 153 countries voted overwhelmingly in favour of the resolution while 10 countries led by the US and Israel voted against it. Twenty-three other countries including the United Kingdom abstained. Thus, the UN General Assembly adopted the resolution on the Middle East demanding a humanitarian ceasefire, the protection of civilians, the immediate, unconditional release of all hostages and humanitarian access.
The move by Washington to block the resolution leaves the United States diplomatically isolated and raised further questions about relevance of veto power in the quest for global peace.
“What is the message we are sending Palestinians if we cannot unite behind a call to halt the relentless bombardment of Gaza?” Deputy UAE UN Ambassador Mohamed Abushahab asked members of the council. “Indeed, what is the message we are sending civilians across the world who may find themselves in similar situations?”
The voting came after UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres invoked Article 99, a rarely used provision in the UN charter, to warn the Security Council of an impending “humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza. He said that with the war raging on for two months and counting, the humanitarian support net in Gaza faces a “severe risk of collapse.”
More than 17,000 Palestinians have been killed and 1.9 million people have been displaced since the war began in October.
US officials argued that they opposed a general ceasefire because it would only help Hamas retain its grip on power in Gaza. A week-long ceasefire late last month enabled the release of 110 Hamas hostages in exchange for 240 Palestinians who had been incarcerated in Israeli jails. It also bought time for aid workers to bring more humanitarian supplies into the besieged Palestinian enclave.
The US mission to the UN said in a statement that it opposed the ceasefire resolution because the “rushed” proposal was “divorced from reality” and would “only plant the seeds for the next war.” Washington’s suggestions for revising the resolution were largely ignored, deputy US UN Ambassador Robert Wood said. Among other concerns, he added, the document failed to include language condemning the Hamas attacks.
Despite these claims, observers say the US should be condemned for the misapplication of its veto power to repetitively quash the resolution’s seeking for immediate ceasefire even in the face humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip.
One of the most controversial features of the
United Nations Security Council (UNSC) which plays a pivotal role in maintaining international peace and security is the veto power held by its five permanent members, namely.
China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. While this power was envisaged to prevent major powers from being coerced into actions against their national interests, it has increasingly been criticized for its potential to hinder effective decision-making and exacerbate conflicts.
The veto power was established to ensure that no resolution could be adopted by the UNSC without the consent of all five permanent members primarily to prevent any single state or coalition of states from dominating the international arena. However, this power has evolved over time, and its consequences have become a subject of intense debate.
In light of the recent UN General Assembly vote authorizing a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and the US applicator of its veto has potentially impeded the conflict resolution efforts. Because Washington possesses vested interests in the Middle East crises, resolutions, both past and present, aimed at mitigating conflicts have been blocked, perpetuating violence and suffering. This was evident in the case of the Israeli-Hamas conflict, where the US veto power has hindered numerous attempts to address the situation effectively.
Generally, the veto power’s selective use by permanent members threatens to undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the UNSC and the United Nations as a whole. When resolutions supported by a vast majority of member states are vetoed, it creates a perception of bias and unfairness, eroding trust in the institution and diminishing its ability to fulfill its primary mandate.
In addition, the veto power perpetuates an inherent power imbalance among the permanent members, granting them a privileged status in global decision-making. This privilege will lead to a perception of inequality and hinder the aspirations of other member states for a more equitable international system. Such power dynamics will impede the ability of the UNSC to address emerging global challenges effectively.
When permanent members use their veto to protect their narrow interests, it can prevent the Council from taking timely and effective action to address pressing global issues. This can lead to prolonged suffering and exacerbation of conflicts, as seen in the case of the ongoing crisis in the Gaza Strip.
Sadly, as we grapple with the reality of the current predicament of UNSC, the recent UN General Assembly vote authorizing a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip highlights the limitations and challenges posed by veto power. While the General Assembly holds significant moral and political weight, its resolutions are non-binding. The inability of the UNSC to reach a consensus due to the veto power has limited its ability to take decisive action to end the violence and protect civilian lives.
Recognizing the negative implications of the UNSC veto power, there have been calls for reform to enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council. Some proposals include: expanding the permanent membership of the UNSC to include emerging regional powers could help address power imbalances and increase representation. However, defining the criteria for new permanent members and securing consensus on their selection remain significant challenges; restricting the veto power to prevent its abuse and to ensure that the Council can take timely action in the face of humanitarian crises or mass atrocities;. Another proposal suggests enhancing the role and authority of the UN General Assembly in addressing security issues to help mitigate the impact of the UNSC veto power. Strengthening the Assembly’s decision-making process, especially in situations where the UNSC is deadlocked, could provide a more inclusive and representative forum for conflict resolution.
Certainly, urgent reforms are required to strike a balance between the need for consensus and the imperative for prompt and decisive action. Only then can the UNSC truly fulfill its mandate of maintaining international peace and security in a fair and equitable manner.
