SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
veto
Report Shows How Five Global Powers on UN Security Council Are 'Vetoing Humanity'
"The UNSC is failing people living in conflict, with Russia and the United States particularly responsible for abusing their veto power," said Oxfam.
Sep 19, 2024
As the number of people in need of humanitarian assistance worldwide has skyrocketed by 150% over the last decade, five powerful countries on the United Nations Security Council have had hundreds of opportunities to vote for progress in some of the world's most protracted conflicts—but in dozens of cases, countries including the United States and Russia have instead vetoed peace and security resolutions.
In its report, Vetoing Humanity, Oxfam International pointed Thursday to numerous vetoes made by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (UNSC), or the P5, which the humanitarian group said have placed their own economic and political interests ahead of the council's mission.
The group examined 23 of the world's longest violent conflicts, including those in the occupied Palestinian territories, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen, which have collectively been the subjects of 454 resolutions passed by the UNSC since 2014.
But 30 resolutions have been vetoed by one of more of the P5 countries, including eight out of 12 regarding Palestine and Israel, 15 out of 53 on Syria, and 4 out of 7 on Ukraine.
"The UNSC is failing people living in conflict, with Russia and the United States particularly responsible for abusing their veto power," said Oxfam, noting that the two countries have together cast 75% of the 88 vetoes at the UNSC since 1989, with China casting the rest.
The other two permanent members, the United Kingdom and France, have not used their veto power since 1989, but they have still joined the other powerful countries in undermining global peace and security, said Oxfam.
In addition to veto power, the P5 has "pen-holding" privileges at the UNSC, allowing them to lead negotiations and decide how resolutions are drafted or whether they are ignored.
"The erratic and self-interested behavior of UNSC members has contributed to an explosion of humanitarian needs that is now outpacing humanitarian organizations' ability to respond. This demands a fundamental change of our international security architecture at the very top."
The P5 members have "deliberately cherry-picked which conflicts to address in the Council," reads the report. "Over the last decade, over 95% of the resolutions that the UNSC passed relate to just half of the protracted crises, leaving the other half mostly neglected."
France, the U.K., and the U.S. have held the pen on two-thirds of protracted crises over the last decade, allowing them to direct negotiations. For example, the U.K. has pen-holding privileges in talks on Yemen, "where it has interests due to historical colonial links and the strategic desire to maintain maritime routes."
The United States' use of its veto power at the UNSC has come under particular scrutiny in the past year, as it has vetoed three resolutions calling for a cease-fire in Gaza since Israel began bombarding the enclave and blocking humanitarian aid to its 2.3 million people, pushing the population toward famine. It has also vetoed proposals to grant U.N. membership to Palestine, despite the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) voting in favor, 138-9.
"While the UNGA has passed at least 77 resolutions over the last decade supporting Palestinian self-determination and human rights and an end to Israel's illegal occupation, the U.S. has used its veto power six times to block resolutions perceived as unfavorable to its ally Israel," said Oxfam. "The U.S. vetoes have created a permissive environment for Israel to expand illegal settlements in the Palestinian territory with impunity."
P5 vetoes have "more often than not," said Oxfam executive director Amitabh Behar, "contradicted the will of the U.N. General Assembly, in which all states are represented."
The report details other vetoes by the P5, including a 2023 veto by Russia of a nine-month extension of cross-border assistance to northern Syria‚ a decision that left 4.1 million people with little or no access to food, water, or medicine. Russia has also vetoed several resolutions on the country's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, despite the fact that the U.N. Charter states that "a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting."
"China, France, Russia, the U.K., and the U.S. took responsibility for global security at the UNSC in what is now a bygone colonial age," said Behar. "The contradictions of their acting as judge and jury of their own military alliances, interests, and adventures are incompatible with a world seeking peace and justice for all."
While the P5 ostensibly helped form the UNSC with the aim of promoting and maintaining global peace and security, the report notes that "they are providing more resources in the form of military aid than they are in humanitarian assistance," with its assistance being used not just defensively by recipients but also helping "to fuel and perpetuate the conflicts that the UNSC is failing to prevent and resolve."
"In 2019, the USA provided three times as much security assistance as humanitarian aid: $18.8 billion versus $6 billion," reads the report. "China pledged $20 million a year in military aid grants to Africa over 2015–17, whereas its worldwide humanitarian assistance in 2016 totaled less than $21 million."
"Not only have the P5 governments repeatedly failed to act to avert conflict, many have profited from wars by directly selling weapons to warring parties despite violations of international humanitarian law and the human suffering resulting from these wars," the report continues.
Behar said that "the erratic and self-interested behavior of UNSC members has contributed to an explosion of humanitarian needs that is now outpacing humanitarian organizations' ability to respond. This demands a fundamental change of our international security architecture at the very top."
The report comes as the U.N. prepares for the Summit of the Future, scheduled to kick off next week with the aim of envisioning "a revitalized U.N."
Oxfam made several recommendations to end the P5's ability to undermine the mission of UNSC, calling on member states to:
- Abolish the veto and take the preliminary step of requiring the P5 to refrain from vetoing resolutions related to war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity;
- Increase UNSC membership to include under-represented and unrepresented regions and countries;
- Reform the tradition of pen-holding;
- Make humanitarian funding mandatory for UNSC members; and
- Require that members refrain from transferring weapons to countries when there is a high risk that they will be used in violations of international humanitarian law.
"We need a new vision for a U.N. system that meets its original ambitions and made fit for purpose for today's reality," Behar said. "A Council that works for the global majority, not a powerful few."
Keep ReadingShow Less
By Voting to Exclude Palestine From Full UN Membership, the US Isolated Itself
The vote demonstrated that the international community remains largely united in its support of the Palestinians.
Apr 28, 2024
The outcome of the Palestinevote and the American veto at the United Nations Security Council on April 18 was predictable. Though European countries are becoming increasingly supportive of a Palestinian state, the United States is not yet ready for this commitment.
These are some of the reasons that the U.S. deputy envoy to the U.N., Robert Wood, vetoed the resolution.
One, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is still governed by Israeli priorities. And since the majority of Israelis reject the idea of a Palestinian state, or any “concessions” or even the most basic rights for Palestinians, the weak U.S. president neither has the courage, nor the desire to defy the Israeli position.
The outcome of the vote further isolates the United States precisely as much as the Israeli genocide in Gaza has also exposed and isolated Washington.
Two, the fact that Israel, as per the words of its ambassador at the U.N., Gilad Erdan, saw that a vote for Palestine would be equivalent to “rewarding terror with a Palestinian state,” created the kind of political discourse that would have made a positive American vote, or an abstention, akin to supporting this so-called terrorism.
Three, U.S. President Joe Biden, in his own Democratic Party’s calculations, cannot politically afford supporting an independent Palestine only a few months ahead of one of the most contested and decisive elections in U.S. history.
His position remains that of supporting a strong Palestinian Authority—which only exists to “secure” Israel against Palestinian Resistance—while giving the illusion that a Palestinian state is forthcoming.
“There needs to be a Palestinian Authority. There needs to be a path to a Palestinian state,” Biden said in October 2023.
The same position was, for the lack of a better word, articulated by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken in January 2024: There is a need for a “pathway to a Palestinian state.”
But what does this mean in practice?
“The problem is getting from here to there, and of course, it requires very difficult, challenging decisions. It requires a mindset that is open to that perspective,” according to Blinken. In other words, more illusions and newspeak.
On the other hand, the Republican Party leadership made it clear that their support for Israel is blind and unconditional. They are also ready to exploit any comment—let alone action—by Biden and his officials that may seem critical of Israel in any way. All of these factors combined made the American veto quite predictable.
Important Lessons
However, the vote was still important, as it, according to Palestinian political leaders and officials, showed that it is the U.S., not the Palestinians, who are isolated within the international community.
Indeed, the vote demonstrated that:
One, the international community remains largely united in its support of the Palestinians.
Two, the positive vote by France, an influential European country, signals a shift in the perception of the European body politic toward Palestine.
“The time has come for a comprehensive political settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the two-state solution,” the French Delegation at the U.N. tweeted on April 19.
Despite the negative outcome of the vote, however, Palestinians now have a renewed resolve that they will ultimately prevail, despite the numerous obstacles created by the U.S. and Israel.
Three, the strong statements emanating from Ireland, Norway, Spain, and others in this regard indicate that the trajectory of support of Palestine in Europe will continue in the coming months and years.
Ireland’s Foreign Minister, Michael Martin, expressed his disappointment “at the outcome of the U.N. Security Council vote on Palestinian U.N. membership,” he tweeted.
“It is past time for Palestine to take its rightful place among the nations of the world. (Ireland) fully supports U.N. membership and will vote in favor of any UNGA resolution to that end.”
The same position was also adopted by Norway.
“Norway regrets that the Security Council did not agree on admitting Palestine as a full member of the UN,” Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide tweeted, adding:“Norway is a staunch supporter of Palestine’s right to statehood. The Two State Solution is the only way to durable peace.”
Four, the outcome of the vote further isolates the United States precisely as much as the Israeli genocide in Gaza has also exposed and isolated Washington.
Despite the Israeli genocide in the Gaza Strip, Washington remains the main line of defense for Tel Aviv, allowing it to violate the rights of the Palestinian people and to deny them the very political horizon needed for a just peace.
And, finally, the vote and veto further accentuate Biden’s inability to liberate himself from the stronghold imposed on him and his party by Israel’s supporters—Israel’s backers within the Democratic Party institution and the pro-Israel lobby from without.
Despite the negative outcome of the vote, however, Palestinians now have a renewed resolve that they will ultimately prevail, despite the numerous obstacles created by the U.S. and Israel.
In truth, this collective feeling of hope and empowerment is not the outcome of the strong support for Palestine at the UNSC and the General Assembly, but of the growing sympathy and support for Palestine worldwide and, even more important, the continued resistance of Palestinians in Gaza.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Israeli Forces Fire on Starving Palestinians, US Again Vetoes UN Cease-Fire Resolution
"We should ask ourselves: How many innocent lives must be sacrificed before the council deems it necessary to call for a cease-fire?" said the Algerian envoy to the United Nations.
Feb 20, 2024
As a United Nations agency halted aid deliveries in northern Gaza, where acute malnourishment is rampant among children, citing a "breakdown of social order" fueled by Israel's bombardment of and blockade on the enclave, the United States for a third time on Tuesday vetoed a cease-fire resolution at the U.N. Security Council—saying it was an inopportune time to demand that Israel end its massacre of Palestinians.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield said the cease-fire resolution, proposed by Algeria, would "negatively impact" negotiations for a truce that are ongoing.
Amar Bendjama, Algeria's ambassador to the U.N., said the U.S. ambassador's lone vote against the resolution "implies an endorsement of the brutal violence and collective punishment inflicted upon" Palestinians in Gaza.
Thirteen countries supported the resolution, while the U.K.—which has veto power, like the U.S., China, France, and Russia—abstained from voting.
The vote marked the third time the U.S. has vetoed a cease-fire resolution at the U.N. Security Council (UNSC). Meanwhile, the Biden administration has approved weapons transfers to Israel without the oversight of the U.S. Congress since the assault began in October, and has vehemently defended the bombardment as being focused on defeating Hamas, even as Israel has killed more than 29,000 Palestinians including more than 11,500 children.
"We should ask ourselves: How many innocent lives must be sacrificed before the council deems it necessary to call for a cease-fire?" said Bendjama. "Palestinian lives matter. Each one of us decides where to stand in this tragic chapter of history."
As the U.S. rejected the cease-fire resolution, Al Jazeera reported on the chaos that has erupted in northern Gaza as Israel has blocked aid trucks from reaching starving civilians there.
The World Food Program (WFP) said Tuesday it was pausing deliveries after crowds of desperate people overwhelmed aid workers.
As Al Jazeera reported, children collected flour that spilled from an aid truck in Gaza City, before Israeli forces began firing on the crowd.
"We want to feed our children just like everyone else," one Palestinian man told Al Jazeera, "so we went to get some flour. But then we were shot at, shells were fired, and tanks advanced at us."
The WFP and the U.N. Children's Fund said Monday that starvation is particularly severe in northern Gaza, with 1 in 6 children under age two—more than 15%—acutely malnourished. An estimated 3% of children under two are experiencing a severe form of wasting—being underweight for their age and height.
In December, 15 agencies including the WFP warned that northern Gaza is at risk for a famine by May unless conditions significantly improve.
The United States' veto of Algeria's resolution on Tuesday, said Bendjama, should be understood as "approval of starvation as a means of war against hundreds of thousands of Palestinians."
The U.S. proposed its own resolution calling for a "temporary cease-fire as soon as practicable," and warning Israel not to conduct an expected ground operation in Rafah, where more than 1.5 million people—most of whom have been forcibly displaced from other parts of Gaza—are now sheltering.
The Permanent Mission of Liechtenstein to the U.N. called on the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) to take action to protect Palestinians.
Under Section A of Resolution 377A of the U.N. Charter, also known as "Uniting for Peace," the UNGA can convene an emergency meeting and make recommendations for collective measures, if members of the UNSC can't reach an agreement and fail to exercise their "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security."
Hossam Baghat, executive director of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, suggested the U.S. veto should trigger "mass resignations of U.S. diplomats and public servants from the State Department and across the administration."
Al Jazeera reported that Palestinians in Gaza expressed anger over the United States' latest veto.
"There is a great deal of pessimism and frustration. Palestinians no longer trust the international community, as we have been hearing from locals here in Gaza," correspondent Tareq Abu Azzoum reported from Rafah. "During the Security Council meeting there have been more attacks on the ground here in Gaza. People here are completely frustrated."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular