0
0
Al Jazeera has discovered that Malta has distributed a fresh draft resolution that centers on the children of Gaza. Will there be a US veto?
As death and despair descend on Gaza, tense and challenging deliberations in the UN Security Council continue in an attempt to break the impasse that is crippling the world’s most powerful decision-making authority.
Al Jazeera has gathered that, following many failed attempts over the previous month to adopt a resolution on the conflict in Gaza, Vanessa Frazier, the ambassador of Malta to the UN, has put forward a fresh proposal for discussion and possible voting among the Council members.
As death and despair descend on Gaza, tense and challenging deliberations in the UN Security Council continue in an attempt to break the impasse that is crippling the world’s most powerful decision-making authority.
Al Jazeera has gathered that, following many failed attempts over the previous month to adopt a resolution on the conflict in Gaza, Vanessa Frazier, the ambassador of Malta to the UN, has put forward a fresh proposal for discussion and possible voting among the Council members.
Malta, one of the ten elected members of the Council, has held the position of penholder since 2022 regarding minors involved in armed conflict. Malta has the chance to take the lead in the UNSC’s initiatives to safeguard children in conflict areas thanks to this position. According to diplomatic sources who spoke with Al Jazeera, the new resolution is being crafted with a kid-focused approach in the hopes that all 15 UNSC members would be able to agree on child rights throughout the current violence.
“Children’s right to life and health is being denied,” declared Adele Khodr, regional director of UNICEF Middle East and North Africa, on Friday. The UN body continued by cautioning that since child health facilities in the Gaza Strip are on the verge of collapse, the lives of one million children in the beleaguered enclave are “hanging by a thread.”
Not only have there been fresh attempts to craft wording that strikes a compromise with all of the UNSC’s members—including the US—but there has also been a change in the US’s own position, raising hopes that the body would finally address the conflict in Gaza. On November 2, President Joe Biden made the first request for an end to Israel’s conflict for humanitarian reasons.
According to US officials, the elected members of Albania, Brazil, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Switzerland, and the United Arab Emirates are actively being engaged with. This is noteworthy because, since the violence started on October 7, the Council has been unable to pass many resolutions due in part to its veto authority.
However, there is still a great deal of debate in the Council over the resolution’s precise wording. A US resolution requesting a “humanitarian pause”—a term that implies it would be temporary and conditional—has been vetoed by China and Russia. The majority of the other council members favor adding the phrase “ceasefire” to the resolution. The UN’s highest body, tasked with preserving global peace and security, is at a standstill as a result of the resolution’s single word choice—pause or ceasefire.
The length of the combat breaks in the Maltese resolution is a crucial issue that may come up for discussion, sources told Al Jazeera. According to humanitarian organizations and even US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Israel’s agreed-upon four-hour pauses are currently insufficient to significantly reduce humanitarian suffering. It’s uncertain, though, if the US will consent to pauses that extend for many days at a time.
Nevertheless, one item has evolved from the prior decisions. With 120 votes out of 193 members, the UN General Assembly, which speaks for all UN members, made it plain what it thought and called for a humanitarian ceasefire on October 27. Although such a resolution is not legally enforceable, it has moral significance as a gauge of global sentiment.
Why hasn’t the UN accepted a Gaza cease-fire?
Previous draft resolutions by the UNSC urging a truce in Gaza have been unsuccessful. The US was one of the nations that voted against the two resolutions that Russia had authored, and they did not receive enough votes. The United nations vetoed a resolution that was submitted by Brazil, despite the resolution receiving 12 votes out of the 15 member nations. Additionally, the US-drafted resolution was vetoed by China and Russia.
Although the five permanent members of the UN Security Council—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—have the authority to veto any resolution they disagree with, this is still not very often. The two nations that have used their veto power the most in the past are the US and Russia. The US has largely used its veto power in recent years to defend its ally Israel.
It wasn’t always like this. Before the 1970s, the US frequently permitted resolutions that Israel disagreed with to pass.
Along with other UNSC members, it cast a vote in 1956 denouncing Israel for conducting a military operation in Gaza the year before. Gaza was under Egyptian rule at the time.
If a resolution is approved, will Israel comply?
In more recent times, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2334 on December 23, 2016, in the last days of the Barack Obama presidency.
Israel’s colonies in occupied Palestine, including East Jerusalem, “had no legal validity, constituting a flagrant violation under international law,” according to this resolution, which was reiterated. It further said that one of the main challenges to the idea of a two-state solution was the settlements. Despite intense pressure from Israel and the US government, the Obama administration ultimately decided not to veto it. With 14 votes, the resolution was approved.
While the Council’s decision, which also called for immediate actions to prevent violence against civilians, is “binding international law”, it was ignored by Israel.
What happens if a country defies a UNSC resolution?
If the resolution is breached, the next stage is for the Council to take disciplinary measures. This would be included in a follow-up resolution that asks for action and addresses the violation.
The UN has already acted by imposing sanctions on nations that violated its rules. China and Russia, two permanent members of the UNSC, have, however, recently resisted the adoption of further measures.
The Council has the authority to authorize an international force in accordance with the UN Charter, going one step further. An important illustration of this occurred in 1991 when the US-led military coalition was established to stop Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.
Any conceivable follow-up resolution is where the issue is. A punitive resolution that would take strong action against Israel would almost never receive support from the Biden administration.
The US government is currently attempting to persuade Israel to cease murdering civilians and limit its military actions through covert means. However, they don’t function.
As of right now, Israel does not appear to be at all concerned about being held accountable under international law. The Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court, is not ratified by Israel or the United States. (ICC).
The court has said unequivocally that it has jurisdiction over offenses committed during the Gaza War. A strong argument may include violations of international humanitarian law and UNSC resolutions, such as the targeting of hospitals and the indiscriminate bombardment of residential areas.
There is no way that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will willingly turn himself in for detention in The Hague, even in the event that the ICC initiates action. Similarly, since the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in March on charges of war crimes, Putin has not shown himself to the judges of the organization.
All of this does not preclude the possibility of future changes in the situation. Furthermore, there is no statute of limitations on war crimes committed in violation of international law. Evidence on the ongoing violence is being gathered by the ICC and a different International Independent Commission of Inquiry, which was established by the UN Human Rights Council in 2021. This will be kept on file for public viewing.
How has the UN performed thus far?
In the past, the UN has deployed peacekeeping troops to deal with matters pertaining to Israel. Among them is the UN Emergency Force (UNEF), which in 1956 stationed foreign troops on the Israeli-Egyptian frontier.
Even now, two other missions continue to function. After the Israeli and Syrian soldiers in the Golan Heights decided to withdraw, the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) was created in 1974. The UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was established in 1978 with the goals of reestablishing global peace and security and verifying Israel’s departure from Lebanon.
These troops are tasked with keeping an eye on things, reporting any violations, and projecting a sense of calm.
Nevertheless, the amount of peace these forces may bring about is limited. With the worst fighting between Hezbollah and Israeli forces in years, there is presently no peace along the Blue Line, the front line that separates Lebanon and Israel. For a very long period, particularly during the Syrian conflict, the Golan Heights situation has also been quite volatile.
But that’s all only relevant if the UNSC can reach a consensus on a resolution first. Another test is set to be conducted.
SOURCE:-ALJAZEERA
