USA vetoes a Security Council resolution on the Israel-Gaza conflict
On Wednesday, the USA rejected a UN Security Council resolution that asked for “humanitarian pauses” so that millions of people in Gaza may receive life-saving relief. Following the rejection of a draught supported by Russia on Monday evening, the Council failed to make its first official intervention in the Israel-Gaza dispute.
The Brazilian-led proposal was approved by 12 of the Council’s 15 members; the United States, Russia, and the United Kingdom both abstained. Any item that is submitted before the Council is halted if one of its five permanent members votes “no.” China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States are the organization’s permanent members.
Russian modifications
Prior to the vote, the Security Council rejected two Russian-sponsored amendments that demanded an immediate, comprehensive, and sustainable ceasefire as well as a halt to strikes on civilians. The Council of Ambassadors was reminded by Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia that “the time for diplomatic metaphors is long gone.” Anyone who opposed Russia’s proposed resolution on this subject is accountable for the outcomes, he added. It “will not help to stop the bloodshed” and “has no clear call for a ceasefire” in the present drought.
He said that Russia had added changes that called for a halt to indiscriminate assaults on Gazan population and infrastructure, condemned the installation of the siege on the territory, and included a new point calling for a humanitarian truce. It would not assist to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza if these were not included in the current draught, and it would polarise opinions among members of the international community, the guy added.
USA opposition
In the Council chamber, USA Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield stated that her nation’s veto was necessary because “this resolution did not mention Israel’s right of self-defence,” which is guaranteed by Article 51 of the UN Charter. She added that because the Council had previously reaffirmed this right in resolutions on terrorist attacks, “this resolution should have done the same.”
In the Council chamber, US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield defended her country’s veto, stating that “this resolution did not mention Israel’s right of self-defence.”
Despite being unable to support the resolution, the USA, according to the spokeswoman, would still closely coordinate with all Council members on the issue, “just as we will continue to reiterate the need to protect civilians, including members of the media, humanitarian workers, and UN officials.” In addition, USA Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield pointed out that with President Joseph Biden’s and other senior officials’ visits, the USA is also doing on-the-ground diplomacy. Resolutions are significant, and the Council needs to express itself. However, the decisions we make must take into account the reality on the ground and promote direct diplomacy that can result in lifesaving.
Brazil 'heeded the demand' to take action.
Brazil’s ambassador to the Security Council, Sérgio França Danese, stated that his nation reacted to a plea from Council members to develop a unified approach to the situation. Brazil is the Security Council’s President for October. We responded to the appeal responsibly and with a feeling of urgency because, in our opinion, the Security Council needed to act right now. He continued, mentioning efforts to forge a unifying perspective, “Council gridlock in the midst of a humanitarian tragedy is not in the interest of the world community.
By using political reality as a guide, Ambassador Danese reaffirmed that the catastrophic humanitarian situation on the ground was and is the major emphasis, but added, “But our sight was always set on the humanitarian imperative.” “Very sadly, the Council was yet again unable to adopt a resolution on the crisis, again silence and inaction prevailed,” he said, lamenting the fact that collective action had stagnated.
UK's absence
In addition to ignoring the reality that the Islamist group Hamas, which administers Gaza, use Palestinian people as human shields, UK Ambassador Barbara Woodward explained why her nation chose to abstain from voting on the resolution. Hamas has ingratiated itself into civilian neighbourhoods and turned the Palestinian people into victims as well, she said.
She reaffirmed the UK’s support for Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas, free captives, and bolster its security in the long run, while urging Israel “to take all feasible precautions” to protect Palestinian civilians. She continued by saying that it will keep collaborating with all of its allies to address the humanitarian situation, guarantee the safety of people, and “to work towards the peace and stability promised by the two-State solution.”
UAE upholds fundamental values
The only Arab nation on the Council, the United Arab Emirates, represented by Ambassador Lana Zaki Nusseibeh, noted that although the resolution is not flawless, it clearly outlines the fundamental values that must be protected. The horrific tragedies we are seeing in Gaza may be beyond my ability to describe, she added, pointing to the rising death toll from attacks like the one on the al-Ahli Arab Hospital.
“The standards of international humanitarian law are being disregarded by the minute as this destructive conflict continues. Nobody feels secure in Gaza because it is in ruins. She reaffirmed that her nation supports “no less than a full humanitarian ceasefire,” not at the price of Israel’s security but in order to give people the chance to care for the injured, bury the deceased with honour, and start rebuilding their lives.
A second decision
This was the second public meeting of the Council on the Gaza issue. On the situation, ambassadors have convened, primarily behind closed doors, notably on the 8 and 13 of October. A briefing on the issue from top UN officials follows it. The vote on the Brazilian-led draught resolution comes after a Russian-led proposal asking for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza was defeated on Monday evening. That proposal left out any reference or condemnation of the Islamist organisation Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip. China, Gabon, Mozambique, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia were the only countries to vote in support of the resolution; France, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the USA abstained. China, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, Malta, and Switzerland were the only countries to vote against it.
Despite its inability to support the resolution, the United States will continue to closely collaborate with all Council members on the subject, according to the spokesperson, “just as we will continue to reiterate the need to protect civilians, including members of the media, humanitarian workers, and UN officials.” Furthermore, USA Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield stated that the USA is doing on-the-ground diplomacy through the visits of President Joseph Biden and other top officials. Resolutions matter, and the Council must express itself. However, USA our actions must take into consideration the reality on the ground and encourage direct diplomacy that can save lives.